IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21198 of 2013 ====================================================== Shalu Kumari W/O - Rajesh Kumar R/O/V - Lahrania, P.S. - Triveniganj, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Commissioner, Kosi Division, Saharsa 3. District Magistrate, Supaul 4. District Program Officer, Supaul 5. Child Development Project Officer, Block Triveniganj, District - Supaul 6. Rekha Kumari W/O - Ravindra Yadav R/O/V - Lahrania, Block and P.S. - Triveniganj, District - Supaul ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 3 14-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No one appears on behalf of the State. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief/s:- “I. For quashing of the Anganwadi Appeal No.151/2012 dated 11.10.2012 passed by Respondent no.2, whereby the said respondent has allowed the appeal of respondent no.6 on improper & illegal grounds. II. For quashing of the order dated 28.07.2012 issued vide letter no.1110 by respondent no.2, whereby the said respondent dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on illegal grounds. III. For directing the respondents to select & appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Sevika at Patna High Court CWJC No.21198 of 2013(3) dt.14-07-2025 2/2 Anganwadi Centre Code 212, Lahrania, Block- Triveniganj, District- Supaul, because on enquiry it was found that the selection of respondent no.6 was done on the basis of forged/fabricated documents submitted by her & hence the selection cancelled by the respondent no.3 & also because the petitioner happens to be the fittest candidate securing highest marks as per the merit list prepared for Anganwadi Sevika. IV. For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner may be entitled in the facts & circumstances of the case.” 3. After some arguments, it transpires to this Court that in the present case, the disputed question of fact is involved which cannot be decided by this Court and can only be decided by the competent Civil Court. 4. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition is hereby disposed off granting liberty to the petitioner to avail her remedy before the competent Civil Court and resolve all the disputed questions which she has raised in the present writ petition. Divyansh/- (Dr. Anshuman, J) U