IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6182 of 2005 TANUJA KUMARI, w/o Samir Kumar resident of village- Purani Sarai, Ward No. 12, Gram Panchayat Bhawalpur, Block Nath Nagar, District- Bhagalpur….. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Director Social Welfare Bihar, Patna, Dist. Patna. 3. District Magistrate, Bhagalpur, Dist. Bhagalpur 4. Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur, District Bhagalpur 5. District Welfare Officer, Bhagalpur, Dist. Bhagalpur. 6. Child Development Project Officer, Nath Nagar, District- Bhagalpur-cum-Chairman of Selection Committee of Anganbari Sevika/ Sahaika. 7. Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Bhawalpur Block Nath Nagar District- Bhagalpur. 8. Anita Kumari, w/o Tribhuwan Mandal, resident of village- Purani Sarai, Ward No. 13, Gram Panchayat Bhawalpur, District- Bhagalpur… … Respondents. For the petitioner Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Deepak Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent No. 8 Mr. Diwakar Yadav, Adv. For the State Mrs Brijita Prakash, A.C. to G. P. 9 ----------- 6. 13.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State as also counsel for private respondent no. 8. Prayer made in this writ application of the petitioner reads as follows:- “1. That this writ application is being filed for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter bearing no. 20 dated 20.10.2004 (Annexure-4) by which respondent no. 8 has been appointed on the post of Sevika of the Centre Puranisarai Purab Tola (Ward No. 11) and further direction to respondent to consider the case of petitioner in view of the decision taken by General body meeting which was held on 27.5.2004 by which committee, the petitioner was duly selected for appointment on the - 2 - post of Sevika in the Centre Puranisarai, Purab Tola ( Ward No. 11) and her selection was duly recommended by the selection committee as well as General body meeting and further direction to respondent to issue appointment letter to the name of petitioner with effect from date 20.10.2004 and treated petitioner shall be appointed with effect from date of issuance of appointment letter in place of the name of respondent no. 8, thereafter consequential benefit should be given to the petitioner.” Counsel for the petitioner with reference to the aforementioned reliefs would submit that as a matter of fact, the Gram Sabha has earlier selected the petitioner for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika but said resolution of Gram Sabha was never given effect to and surprisingly the respondent no. 8 who was not only lesser qualified but even otherwise was not eligible, was appointed reversing the earlier decision of Gram Sabha. Counsel for the petitioner in fact has drawn attention of this court towards the representation filed by petitioner before the Collector of the District on 6.4.2005 wherein it has been stated that such appointment of respondent no. 8 was made on extraneous - 3 - consideration. In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of private respondent no. 8 who is said to have been selected by Gram Sabha on the ground that she also was a matriculate alike the petitioner but then as she was also a handicapped lady. The Gram Sabha had preferred her (respondent no. 8) for being appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika. Counsel for the State has not filed any counter affidavit and it is also not clear as to whether for such appointment of respondent no. 8 any meeting of Gram Sabha was held. The Pramukh of the Area in his separate communication to the Collector of the District had in fact informed that though a meeting of Gram Sabha was to be held but the same was boycotted and as such no resolution could be passed in favour of selection of respondent no.8 by the Gram Sabha. In the opinion of this court, when the petitioner had specifically raised the issue of her being ignored in the selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika despite her being earlier selected and recommended by Gram Sabha itself, it was the duty of the Collector of the - 4 - District to hold an enquiry and pass an order on the representation filed by the petitioner. In absence thereof not only the petitioner has been denied the opportunity extended by the State Government for mitigating the grievance of the petitioner as with regard to her being ignored and/or not considered for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika despite a resolution of Gram Sabha but the Collector of the district seems to acted contrary to the spirit of the Government Circular/guideline on the subject requiring him to adjudicate such question of fact. That being so, this court would now direct the Collector of the District to look into the grievance of the petitioner at once and take a final decision as with regard to selection and appointment of respondent no. 8 in preference to the petitioner who is said to have been earlier selected and recommended for same post of Anganwar Sevika. In order to shorten the process this Court would give liberty to the petitioner to now file a comprehensive representation which would be examined by the Collector of the District with the help of records of Gram Sabha and in the event Collector of the District would find that - 5 - the appointment of respondent no. 8 was not made in accordance with circular of the State Government on the subject, he would not only pass an appropriate order for canceling the appointment of respondent no. 8 but would also direct CDPO to get fresh meeting of Gram Sabha convened wherein the case of eligible candidates including that of the petitioner and Respondent no. 8 would be considered afresh in accordance with law. Such exercise must be completed within a period of six months from the date of filing a representation of the petitioner along with a copy of this order. Let it be made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case of either of the party. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)