- (1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearingfor the Respondents.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and another person including one Kalpana Devi appeared before the Gram Sabha for selection of Aanganwari Sewika for Aanganwari Centre at Karke, Dakshinwara Tola, Meral, Garhwa but the Gram Sabha instead of selecting this petitioner, who had had better qualification, selected one Kalpana Devi for appointment who had produced forged certificate and when this fact was brought to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, Garhwa, he cancelled her appointment but in stead of passing order for appointment of the petitioner, passed an order for holding a Gram Sabha for selection of the Aanganwari Sewika which is quite illegal as on the date, when the petitioner was illegally denied appointment, she was the fittest candidate to be appointed as Aanganwari Serika.
(3.) Admittedly, the petitioner had never been selected by the Gram Sabha for appointment of Aanganwari Sewika for the Aanganwari Centre at Karke, Dakshinwara Tola, Meral, Garhwa and as such any direction for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Aanganwari Sevika would be unwarranted. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to participate in the Gram Sabha meeting which, according to the petitioner, is likely to be convened soon for selection of the Aanganwari Sevika for the Aanganwari Centre at Karke, Dakshinwara Tola, Meral, Garhwa. On her participation, it is expected that the members of the Gram Sabha would consider the case of the petitioner according to her eligibility. It is desirable that the process of selection of Aanganwari Sevika be completed at the earliest.;