IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1540 of 2005 Rita Devi, Wife of Shri Dhurb Prasad, Resident of Village Navalpur, P.O. Bararm, Via- Pachrukhi, P.S. and Block- Hussainganj, Dist. Siwan. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar. 3. The Commissioner, Saran, Chapra. 4. The District Magistrate, Siwan. 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Siwan. 6. The District Welfare Officer, Siwan. 7. The Bal Bikash Pariyojna Officer, (Child Development Programme Officer), Hussainganj, Siwan. 8. The Circle Officer, Hussainganj, Siwan. 9. Smt. Sushila Devi, Wife of Sri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Resident of Village Navalpur, P.O. Bararm, Via-Pachrukhi, P.S. and Block – Hussaingaj, Dist. Siwan. --------- Respondents ----------- 4 12.11.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the private respondent no.9 as also counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certorari for quashing the order issued under the signature of the Respondent District Welfare Officer, Siwan addressed to the C.D.P.O., Hussainganj vide his letter no.-67(Mu) dt. 6.11.2004 where by and where under direction was given for selection and issuance of appointment letter as AanganBari Sevika at Centre no-1, village- Navalpur Harijan Tola of Gram Panchayt Raj Harihas East in favour of the Respondent no-9 and also for quashing the appointment order issued by the Respondent C.D.P.O. in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 6.11.2004 of the Respondent District Welfare Officer and further for issuance of an appropriate writ for commanding and directing the respondents for selection and appointment of the petitioner as Angan Bari Sevika at the aforesaid Angan 2 Bari Centre and for the other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions, relief/reliefs for which the petitioner found entitle so.” Counsel for the petitioner would only raise two issues pertaining to the selection and appointment of the respondent no.9, namely, that the petitioner is better qualified as she is Graduate in comparison to the respondent no.9, who is Matric (as per respondent no.9, she is Intermediate) and that whereas the petitioner belongs to the category of below the poverty line but, the respondent no.9 does not fall in the aforementioned category. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent no.9, on the other hand, would submit that when a conscious decision was taken by the Gram Sabha, it would be wholly incorrect for the petitioner to come out and assail the decision of the Gram Sabha because such scheme is meant for the benefit of the majority of the people residing in the Tola and therefore, selection has to be also made from amongst such majority. In the opinion of this Court, all these aspects of the matter being pure questions of fact should have been in the first instance raised by the petitioner before the Collector of the district, who apart from being prescribed authority is also in a better position to get the facts enquired into and pass an order on the basis of such enquiry. In fact, counsels for the parties agree that such an enquiry was also conducted but, it could not reach to its finality. That being so, this Court would direct the Collector of the district to look into the grievance of the petitioner and if the petitioner files a 3 fresh representation along with a copy of this order, the Collector of the district after issuing notice to the respondent no.9 as also representative of the Gram Panchayat in question would pass a final order after extending opportunity of hearing to them. Such an exercise must be completed by the Collector of the district within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with the aforementioned representation of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observation/direction this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)