IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11515 of 2007 SUMITRA DEVI, wife of Baleshwar Prasad Rajak, Resident of village Khasa Dhola, P.S. Belhar, District Banka. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through its Secretary, Welfare Department. 2.Disrict Magistrate, Banka. 3.District Welfare Officer, Banka. 4.Pyari Devi, Mukhiya, Gram Panchaqyat, Kheshar Block phoolidoomer, Banka. 5.Sukhchandra Jha, Invigilatory in Charge Cum B.A.O, Block Phoolidoomer, Banka. 6.Prakash Chandra Roy, Secretary, Gram Panchayata, Bhitia, Banka. 7.Pooja Devi, wife of Ramswroop Sharma, resident of village Bishwakarma Tola, P.S. Belhar, District Banka at present Aanganwari Assistant, Gram Panchayata Khesar Centre Bishwakarma Tola Centre No.7 Block Phoolidoomer. ----------- 2 4/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “In this writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari/mandamus to cancel the appointment of Pooja Devi (Respondent no.7) for the post of Anganwari Sahayika and directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the said post.” 2 Counsel for the petitioner by filing a supplementary affidavit now taken a plea that during pendency of this writ application the petitioner was selected and appointed as Anganbari Sevika and she was also sent for training as would be evident from the certificate dated 28.8.2007 as contained in Annexure-4 and the pass book showing payment of remuneration for the period of four months duly entered in the pass book of Union Bank of India. Counsel for the petitioner however would submit that now on account of change of the C.D.P.O. and posting of new C.D.P.O. salary of the petitioner has been withheld on the ground that there is no appointment letter in the name of the petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, any grievance of the present nature which is not the subject matter of this writ application could have been brought to the notice of the Collector of the district and that having been not done, this application on the present facts of this case has definitely become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. Dismissal of this writ application, however, would not stand in the way of the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the Collector of the district by way of direction to the C.D.P.O. for payment of salary for the admitted working period. Let it be made clear that this Court has not 3 expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner on the issue as to whether appointment of the petitioner is correct or not or the petitioner is entitled for payment of salary. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)