IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17005 of 2011 1. Smt.Geeta Kumari Sri Ram Darshan Singh Vill+ P.O.- Bhitiharwa Ashram,P.S.-Gaunaha,District.-West Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Thru.The Principal Secretary,Social Welfare Departmaent Governmaent,Of Bihar,Patna 2. Director,Integrated Child Development Scheme Indira Bhawan,Ram Charitra Singh Path Patna 3. Commissioner, Tirhut Division,Muzaffarpur,Bihar 4. District Magistrate Cum Chairman, Selection Committee,Dist.-Programme Office,Icds,West Champaran,Bettiah 5. District Programme Officer,Icds,West Champaran,Bettiah 6. District Officer,Icds,West Champaran,Bettiah 7. Child Development Project Officer,I.C.D.S.Project Gaunaha, West Champaran,Bettiah ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, Adv. -------------------- 3. 13.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Notwithstanding the order dated 27.9.2011, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The Court does not accede to the suggestion on behalf of the State that the representation of the petitioner may be directed to be disposed. In absence of any counter affidavit, in the limited nature of the controversy, applying the principle of non-traverse and consideration of the documents of the respondents themselves annexed to the writ petition, the Court proceeds to dispose the application. 2 The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Sewika in the year 1981. In 2010 the respondents published an advertisement for appointment of Lady Supervisor from amongst Anganwari Sewika. The petitioner claims that she fulfills age requirement for the same being below 45 years of age. It has been denied on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner as an Anganwari Sewika on 5.3.1981 was not in consonance with the law as she was 16 years two months and 11 days old short of the age of 18 years. What may or may not have happened in 1981, is hardly relevant today in the year 2010- 2011. The relationship between the parties is of a Principal and Agent and not that of a Government servant. There are no allegations against the petitioner as an Agent for any deficiency in discharge of duties in dissemination of the welfare scheme of the Government. The petitioner has acquired expertise over the years and which the respondents have found useful. She claims to be fulfilling the age requirement being less than 45 years of age on the relevant date of the advertisement. The Court considers it highly 3 unjust and inequitable on part of the respondents to dig out grounds from the graveyard with regard to matters which have attained finality and have been allowed to continue for long years and then deny such consideration. The litigation was avoidable by the respondents. The order dated 31.5.2011 is therefore set aside. Let the petitioner be considered for the post of Lady Supervisor in accordance with the advertisement and law. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)