JUDGMENT S N Pathak, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court with prayer for a direction upon the respondents to confirm the services of the petitioner to the post of Aanganbari Sevika for Gidhani Aaganbari Centre No.II, Deoghar after getting due approval from the respondent No.3. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. In consonance with the notification issued by the Central Government, the State Government has issued a guideline contained in Memo No. 585 dated 02.06.2006, stipulating therein the terms and conditions required to be followed for the appointment to the post of Aaganbari Sevika and Aanganbari Sahayika. In terms of the aforesaid guideline, a notice was floated for filling up the post of Aanganbari Sevika for Gidhani Aanganbari Centre-II, Deoghar Block District Deoghar and in pursuance thereof, an Aam Sabha was called on 30.08.2017 headed by the Circle Officer, Deoghar Block, Mukhia, Supervisor, a school teacher and an ANM in presence of Police Personnel. 3. In the proceeding of Aam Sabha, petitioner was selected and appointed to the post of Aanganbari Sevika and accordingly, a provisional appointment letter as contained in Memo No. 02/Camp dated 30.08.2017 was issued in her favour under the signature of the Circle Officer, Deoghar Block. It is further the case of the petitioner that though the provisional appointment letter was issued on 30.08.2017 but till date the services of the petitioner has not been confirmed in want of approval of Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, which is necessary as per the terms and conditions of the provisional appointment. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has represented before the respondents, but the same has not been considered in absence of any approval from the competent authority. As no decision has been taken by the respondents and representation of the petitioner is also pending, the petitioner has been constrained to move before this Court for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case in which a direction may be given to the respondents for giving approval of the provisional appointment of the petitioner as the same has not been done for the reasons best known to the respondents. 5. No counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. 4. Mr. Anurag Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a fit case in which a direction may be given to the respondents for giving approval of the provisional appointment of the petitioner as the same has not been done for the reasons best known to the respondents. 5. No counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that from the averments made in the writ petition it appears that there is some complaint against the petitioner therefore, her approval was not done by the competent authority. However, since no order was passed on the representation of the petitioner, if a direction is given to the respondents, a reasoned order shall be passed on the pending representation of the petitioner, within a stipulated time as per the direction of this Hon''ble Court. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since the petitioner has already been selected for the post of Aaganbari Sevika though the selection was provisional, subject to approval by the Competent Authority but the services is required to be confirmed, in accordance with law. Since the representation of the petitioner is pending before the respondents, I hereby direct the Competent Authority to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner, which is pending before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner may take decision or may refer the same to Competent Authority for taking a decision, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. Needless to say that the Competent Authority shall pass a speaking order assigning concrete and valid reason for consideration / non-consideration of the case of the petitioner and communicated the same to the petitioner, within a further period of three weeks. 8. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.