IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1065 of 2009 Sushila Devi, wife of Prabhu Paswan, Resident of Mohalla Atardah, Ward No.29, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur……Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Director, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur 5. The District Program Officer, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Mushahari, District Muzaffarpur 7. The Ward Councilor, Ward No.29, Mohalla Atardah, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur. 8. Punam Sharma, wife of not known to the petitioner, Resident of Mohalla Atardah, Ward No.29, P.O. Ramna, P.S. Sadar, District Muzaffarpur…………………………………………………………Respondents ----------- 2 15.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner’s complaint against selection of respondent no.8 as Anganwari Sevika was dismissed by the Collector, vide Annexure-9 and her appeal has also been rejected by the Commissioner, vide Annexure-11. The grievance of the petitioner was two fold – one that mapping of the area had not been correctly done in which it was wrongly shown that beneficiaries 2 of backward class were in majority in the area whereas, in fact, beneficiaries of scheduled castes were in majority and secondly that there was only one applicant before the Aam Sabha on the day of selection and, therefore, Aam Sabha should have been postponed to give an opportunity to other candidates to apply. From both the impugned orders it appears that grievance of the petitioner did not find favour by any of the authorities since the area was declared as of backward class majority, the sole applicant of that category was appointed and nothing wrong has been found in the same. So far as the first grievance of the petitioner is concerned, it is essentially a question of fact which requires re-mapping of the entire area. This exercise can be done only by the authorities under the Guidelines and no direction can be issued by this Court for the same only on the basis of a bald claim made by the petitioner. Bald allegation of an unsuccessful candidate 3 cannot be made a basis for re-identification of majority group in a routine manner, as it may lead to uncertainty in each and every case. However, if sufficient materials are available or produced before the authorities, which may indicate that majority group amongst the beneficiaries had not been correctly identified, the authorities are duty bound to enquire into the matter and if necessary, make necessary correction in their records in that respect. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)