IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2663 of 2009 Meena Devi Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- 6. 18.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. No one appears on behalf of Respondent no. 8. The allegation related to appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika and the petitioner alleging that Respondent no. 8 has secured appointment on basis of fraud and forgery. It is indeed unfortunate that the State respondents who are required to adopt a neutral stance in such litigation have not considered it necessary to file a counter affidavit more than two years later when the writ application appears to have been taken up for consideration on three earlier occasions and there was specific direction to file counter affidavit also. Since the petitioner does have a remedy before the District Magistrate where the original records shall also be available the Court directs that the District Magistrate shall decide the issue after hearing all concerned including Respondent no. 8 within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order before him. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Respondent no. 8 is still in service as Anganwari Sevika. The notice of the present proceeding has been served upon her through the District Magistrate by the petitioner in terms of the order of the Court dated 17.8.2010.The District Magistrate is therefore required to apprise her in writing of the present order on the very date that the present order is placed before him. If the Respondent no. 8 does not participate in the proceeding the District Magistrate is required to record detailed notes in his order sheet with regard to the service of notice to Respondent no. 8 and then proceed for an exparte hearing so that in any event the final orders are passed within the time fixed. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)