JUDGMENT : Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard Shri Krishna Kant Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Kumar Kaushik, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 and Shri Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and its authorities. 2. The challenge raised is to the impugned judgment dated 1st of August, 2017 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11744 of 2010 in relation to the selection of an Anganbari Worker in the year 2007, the dispute whereof began in 2009. 3. It is undisputed that there were two centers which were carved out of Centre No.56, namely, Centre No.85 and Centre No.86. The name of respondent No.4 was admittedly within the area of Centre No. 86. The carving out and the preparation of the mapping register of these two Centres does not appear to have been objected and rather Respondent No.4 appears to have applied for being considered to be engaged as an Anganbari Worker in Centre No.85. The matter was taken up before the District Magistrate who under the orders which came to be challenged before the learned Single Judge, came to the conclusion on the strength of a report of the District Programme Officer that the error in the mapping register was to the effect that there was a deliberate omission of certain houses, including the house of respondent No. 4 while the mapping register was being prepared for Centre No. 85. However, since the respondent No. 4 had applied, there was no occasion for a fresh consideration and the respondent No. 4 being higher in merit was engaged as an Anganbari Worker, resulting in the filing of an appeal by the appellant before the competent authority, that was also rejected and the order of the District Magistrate was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the writ petition which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge recording a finding that the Court was not inclined to interfere in view of the fact that there were irregularities in preparation of the mapping register. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the issue of mapping register had never been raised by the respondent No. 4 when the registers were prepared. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the issue of mapping register had never been raised by the respondent No. 4 when the registers were prepared. It is submitted that the inference drawn of an irregularity in the preparation of the mapping register emanated after the report of the District Programme Officer saw the light of the day during the proceedings before the District Magistrate who upheld the same. Learned counsel submits that the reasoning given by the District Programme Officer that the mapping register had been prepared only with the intent to oust the respondent No.4 is perverse inasmuch as it is not understood as to how this was known from before that the respondent No. 4 would be an applicant in future. It is contended that such a reasoning suffers from perversity and the acceptance thereof by the District Magistrate resulted in an erroneous conclusion. Hence, the order deserves to be set aside. 6. The aforesaid facts were neither appreciated by the appellate authority nor by the learned single Judge, including the fact that no objection had been raised by the respondent No. 4 when the Centres had been carved out when the mapping registers had been prepared initially. It is also submitted that there was no prejudice to respondent No.4 as her name was included in Centre No. 86 and, therefore, she ought not to have been an applicant in Centre No.85 which application was erroneously taken into consideration. 7. On the previous occasion after the arguments had been advanced, the Court had desired the production of the letter dated 24th May, 2007, which has been brought on record through the supplementary affidavit of the appellant. The said letter categorically gives illustrations in the shape of guidelines that in the event there is any discrepancy found in the mapping register, then in that event, fresh selections had to be held. 8. The said letter categorically gives illustrations in the shape of guidelines that in the event there is any discrepancy found in the mapping register, then in that event, fresh selections had to be held. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that keeping in view the contents of the said letter, which are just guidelines, the same have been framed in order to protect the interest of a candidate, if the application of a candidate has not been entertained deliberately and it is in order to protect the interest of such a candidate that it has been further observed that in that event if there is a discrepancy in the mapping register, then fresh selection has to be made. 9. In the instant case, the application of the respondent No.4 was very much there for Centre No.85 and consequently, since the application had been entertained then even assuming for the sake of argument that there was a discrepancy or otherwise in respect of the mapping register, substantial justice has been done by entertaining the claim of respondent No. 4 who is also higher in merit than the appellant. 10. Having considered the rival submissions what we find is that the respondent No.4 admittedly was within Centre No.86. The question of the mapping register having been prepared erroneously had not been objected to at the initial stage at all. She, however, applied for Centre No.85 and it appears that her candidature had not been considered, whereupon she made the complaint and then the dispute came to be decided by the District Magistrate after a report was called for from the District Programme Officer. The report of the District Programme Officer indicates that certain irregularities had crept in the mapping register which, according to him, had been done with a view to oust the respondent No.4. In our opinion, whether there was a discrepancy or not is a matter to be assessed as per rules and this could not have been on a presumption that it was done with a view to oust a single individual when admittedly eight houses had been not included. 11. In such circumstances, the aforesaid reasoning may not be correct, but there may be other reasons in relation to the preparation of the mapping register. 11. In such circumstances, the aforesaid reasoning may not be correct, but there may be other reasons in relation to the preparation of the mapping register. If the mapping register is found to have been irregularly prepared, then in that event a case for fresh selection can be made out provided a finding is recorded to that effect in terms of the illustration as given in the letter dated 24th of May, 2007. 12. We, therefore, find that the learned single Judge was not correct in observing that there was an irregularity in the preparation of the mapping register and yet the respondent No. 4 had been selected on merits, therefore, no interference was called for. We find that this issue deserves a remittance to the District Magistrate for a consideration of the issue in the light of the guidelines dated 24th of May, 2007. 13. We accordingly partly allow the appeal to the aforesaid extent and set aside the dismissal of the writ petition with a direction to the District Magistrate to reconsider the aforesaid aspects in the light of the observations made herein above as well as such rules that were applicable when the dispute arose and pass an appropriate order within two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of the order. 14. It is clarified that since the respondent No.4 had been appointed way back in the year 2009, we are not interfering with her appointment at this stage, which shall be subject to the outcome of the orders to be passed by the District Magistrate as directed herein above. The District Magistrate shall pass the orders only after hearing the appellant as well as the respondents.