IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12708 of 2007 SHILA KUMARI W/O Shri lal Singh @ Krishan murti Singh, resident of village Hardyal nagar, Banni, (Babu bagicha) P.S Maheshkhunt (Gogari), District Khagaria. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Collector, Khagaria 3. The Block Development Officer, Gogri, Block, Khagaria. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Gogari Block, District-Khagaria. 5. Arun Singh (Mukhiya) S/o Not known, Banni, Panchayat, P.S.-Mahushunt, Gogari, District- Khagaria. 6. Kusumi Devi, W/o Ramvilash Singh, resident of village-Hardyal Nagar, Banni, P.S.-Maheshkhut, Gogari, District-Khagaria. ----------- 2 17/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. This is second round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner for the same relief. Earlier also prayer of the petitioner was rejected on account of certain want of document/information, but the Division Bench in the appeal sought by the petitioner has given leave to file a fresh writ application for the same cause of action and that is how this writ application has been filed for the following relief:- “For issuance of any appropriate writ or writs rule or direction especially in the nature of mandamus, commanding the concerned respondents to select the petitioner on the post of Angan Bari Sevika forward No.10 & 11 in Banni Gram panchayat, under the Gogari Block District- Khagaria, in the light of 2 the general body meeting held on 22.9.04 as she was already selected by the selection committee in AAM SABHA.” Counsel for the petitioner, however, when being asked as to whether the petitioner had moved the prescribed authority before filing of either of the aforementioned two writ applications, had to concede that she had not done so. In the opinion of this Court, once an internal remedy is provided under any scheme by the Government, it would always augur well, at least for the recording findings of fact, to move that authority so that the issue gets crystallized for adjudication by a court of law. The repeated writ applications, in fact, filed by the petitioner must be held to be misconceived and based on wrong advice. The present writ application therefore must be held to be not maintainable on the ground of petitioner not exhausting the alternative remedy and is accordingly dismissed. Such dismissal, however, will not stand in the way of the petitioner to approach the prescribed authority, Collector of the district, who would now pass a fresh order within the time limit fixed under the recent Government circular dated 10.12.2009. 3 It goes without saying that the petitioner, if he is still aggrieved by the order of the Collector of the district she will have to move in appeal before the Commissioner of the Division and only thereafter may move the competent court of law. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)