JUDGMENT: 1. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioners in all the aforesaid writ petitions have been selected for the posts of Anganbari Sevika/ Anganbari Sahayika, as stated in the aforesaid petitions. It also appears that, thereafter, a committee has been constituted for checking the legality of selection process etc. of several candidates, including these petitioners. 2. It further appears that certain gross irregularities have been found out by the committee, appointed by the State, and, therefore, a decision has been taken for fresh selection of the Anganbari Sevika/ Anganbari Sahayika, in the cases, in which irregularities have been found out, and the cases of the present petitioners are covered under the umbrella of irregularities, in the selection process, as reported by the committee, appointed by the State. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsels for the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions that never an opportunity of being heard was given to these petitioners and, therefore, let all these writ petitions be treated as representations by the respective Child Development Project Officers and the decision(s) may be taken, after giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioners or their representatives, by the respective Child Development Project Officers. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that they have no much objection, if such order is passed by this Court. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I hereby direct the concerned Child Development Project Officer of the respective Blocks to treat these petitions as representations for the respective petitioners and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their representatives, a fresh decision will be taken by the respective Child Development Project Officers, in accordance with law, rules, regulations, policies and the enforceable government orders, applicable to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, passed by this Court. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the orders, passed by the Child Development Project Officer is always appellable under Clause 16 of the Policy before the Deputy Commissioner and, therefore, if at all, the petitioners are aggrieved, after a fresh decision is taken by the respective Child Development Project Officer, appeal(s) will be preferred by the petitioners before the concerned Deputy Commissioner. 7. I, therefore, direct the concerned Child Development Project Officers to mention in their speaking order, before whom the appeal will be preferred, in case the petitioners are aggrieved. Always, if the order is appellable under the policy decision of the Government, such guidance ought to be given to the petitioner to avoid the multiplicity of the writ petitions, directly before this Court. 8. If any decision is taken by the Deputy Commissioner, giving guidance to the Child Development Project Officer, as stated in these petitions, the same will be ignored by the Child Development Project Officers and independently, the conclusion will be arrived at by the respective Child Development Project Officers. Once an independent decision is taken by the respective Child Development Project Officers, further action will be taken, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and the policies. 9. All the writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of, in view of the aforesaid directions and observations.