IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14184 of 2009 1. MEENA SINGH @ MINA SINGH W/O SRI JIT NARAYAN SINGH VILL-SAROSER UNDER GRAM PANCHAYAT- NARWAR BLOCK- KOCHAS, DISTT- ROHTAS (SASARAM) Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF INTEGRATED CHILED DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS AT SASARAM 4. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BLOCK- KOCHAS,DISTT- ROHTAS (SASARAM) 7. THE MUKHIA NARWAR GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BLOCK- KOCHAS, DISTT- ROHTAS (SASARAM) THROUGH THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK- KOCHAS, DISTT- ROHTAS (SASARAM) ----------- 2. 09.11.2009 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. On 20.9.2004 the petitioner was placed at serial position three of the panel but not selected on the post of Anganwari Sevika. Her husband questioned the appointment of one Chinta Devi at serial one of the panel. By an order dated 23.12.2008 the authorities found illegality in the appointment of Chinta Devi, however the order did not record any finding that any illegalities/irregularities had been committed by placing the petitioner at serial three of the panel holding that she did not fulfil the qualifications as on the date of consideration i.e. on 29.9.2004. Secondly, orders have been issued for fresh selection and appointment. Learned Counsel submits that notwithstanding such fresh orders the process of fresh selection and appointment was not being complied with. The writ application is disposed with the observation that if the petitioner be right in her assertion, the authorities as per their need and requirement of the government welfare scheme if Anganwari Sevikas are appointed, are required to consider, decide and make appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika consequent to the removal of the erstwhile candidate Chinta Devi at an early date preferably within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before them. It is made clear that this is not a mandamus to make appointment. The mandamus is to decide if the appointment is required to be made and then proceed in accordance with law. If the petitioner also applies in response to the same she is naturally required to be considered afresh along with others in accordance with law. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)