IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14759 of 2009 1. SMT. GAYATRI DEVI W/O VIJAY SHANKAR SINGH AND D/O LATE RAM CHARAN SINGH R/O VILL.- BASUKI, P.S.- MADHWAPUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF SOCIAL WELFARE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION DARBHANGA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, MADHUBANI 6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, MADHUBANI 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, MADHWAPUR DISTT.- MADHUBANI 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MADHWAPUR DISTT.- MADHUBANI 9. GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BASUKI BIHARI (SOUTH) DISTT.- MADHUBANI, THROUGH ITS MUKHIYA 10. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BASUKI BIHARI (SOUTH) DISTT.- MADHUBANI 11. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BASUKI BIHARI (SOUTH) DISTT.- MADHUBANI 12. SMT. MIRA DEVI W/O SRI CHIRANJEEB CHOUDHARY R/O BASUKI, P.S. MADHWAPUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI ----------- 2. 20.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated 8.11.2007 as affirmed by the Commissioner dated 18.8.2009. The authorities have held that the appointment of respondent no. 12 as an Anganwari Sevika and that of the petitioner as an Aganwari Sahayika was valid. This Court is primarily concerned with the decision making process and it shall not be the jurisdiction of this Court to enter into reappraisal of facts unless the orders suffer from 2 any perversity. The District Magistrate has held that there were two “Aam Sabha” held the same day. The proceedings of the Aam Sabha were not duly recorded and there were cutting in the same when the petitioner came to be appointed as an Anganwari Sevika. In the subsequent Aam Sabha the same day, she has now been appointed as an Anganwari Sahayika when the proceedings are in accordance with law. The Commissioner on appeal by the petitioner has further noticed that the marks of the respondent no. 12 were higher than the petitioner. She was required to be given preference. There were cutting in the proceedings of the first Aam Sabha when the second Aam Sabha were appeared to be conducted and proceeding drawn up in regular course. In view of the concurrent findings of fact by two authorities, this Court finds it difficult to go into the merit of the case and the re-appreciation of evidence to interfere with the impugned order. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)