RAJAN GUPTA, J.:–The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2700 of 2016, whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been disposed off by upholding the order passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, dated 02.01.2016. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant herein had filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 2700 of 2016, inter alia praying therein for quashing the order dated 02.01.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra in Anganwari Case No. 354 of 2012 (Babita Devi Vs. Indu Devi & others), by which the appeal was allowed and the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra in Anganwari Case No. 4 of 2012 (Indu Devi Vs. Babita Devi & others) was set aside. 3. The brief facts of the case are that applications were invited for making selection on the post of Anganwari Sevika for Centre No. 32 under Isuapur Project, Saran, for which the appellant herein, who belongs to Koiri caste (B.C.) had applied apart from the private respondent no. 6 herein, namely, Babita Devi who belongs to Kami caste (E.B.C.) having also applied for being appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika. While the appellant herein had 58.28 per cent marks, the respondent no. 6 had 57.66 per cent marks. The bahulta (majority) area of the said centre is E.B.C., hence the respondent no. 6 namely, Babita Devi is stated to have been declared selected as Sevika by the Aam Sabha. The appellant had then challenged the said selection of the private respondent no. 6 by filing Anganwari Case No. 4 of 2011 befoe the District Magistrate, Saran, who by an order dated 29.10.2012 had cancelled the selection of the private respondent no. 6 with a direction to rectify the mistakes made in the mapping register and accordingly, refix the Bahulta area of the said centre. 6 by filing Anganwari Case No. 4 of 2011 befoe the District Magistrate, Saran, who by an order dated 29.10.2012 had cancelled the selection of the private respondent no. 6 with a direction to rectify the mistakes made in the mapping register and accordingly, refix the Bahulta area of the said centre. The operative portion of the said order dated 29.10.2012 is reproduced herein:— ^^nwljh vksj foi{kh cchrk nsoh us vius p;u dks iw.kZr% oSèkkfud djkj nsrs gq, Li"V dgk gS fd tgk¡ rd fiNM+h vkSj vR;ar fiNM+h tkfr;ksa dk iz'u gS] mlds fy, vYila[;d ;k cgqla[;d dksfV dk foHkktu iwjh rjg ls vizlkafxd gSA iz'uxr dsUnz ds fy, lkekU; oxZ dh dqy tula[;k 24] vfr fiNM+k oxZ dh dqy tula[;k 548] fiNM+k oxZ dh dqy tula[;k 387 vkSj egknfyr oxZ dh dqy tula[;k 155 Fkh vkSj oxZ cgqyrk ds n`f"Vdks.k ls bl dsUnz ij vfr fiNM+k oxZ dk nkok curk gS blfy, vkosfndk dk p;u ugha gqvk vksj foi{kh dk p;u fd;k x;kA bl ekeys dh lquokbZ djrs le; cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh dks ;g vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd eSfiax esa cgqyrk ds bl fcUnq dks Li"V fd;k tk; fd cgqla[;d rFkk vYila[;d tkfr;ksa dks tksM+dj cgqyrk fuèkkZfjr dh tkrh gS ;k ughaA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh dk izfrosnu muds Kkikad 82 fnukad 24-05-2012 ds }kjk izkIr gqvk Fkk] ftlesa muds }kjk Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd vYila[;d rFkk cgqla[;d leqnk;ksa dh fiNM+h rFkk vR;ar fiNM+h tkfr;ksa dks tksM+dj cgqyrk fuèkkZfjr dh tkrh gS] fdUrq cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh ds }kjk tks ifji=k miLFkkfir fd,] ;s lekt dY;k.k foHkkx ds }kjk fuxZr ugha gS] cfYd lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx rFkk iapk;rh jkt foHkkx ds }kjk vkj{k.k lacaèkh ifji=k gSA ftyk izksxzke inkfèkdkjh us lekt dY;k.k foHkkx ls Hkh bl lacaèk esa vius i=kad 893 fnukad 25-06-2012 ds }kjk ekxZn'kZu dh ekWax dh gS] tks izkIr ugha gSA nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk rFkk vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA bl lacaèk esa ftyk izksxzke inkfèkdkjh us Li"V :i ls dgk fd cky fodkl ifj;kstukvksa ds rgr vYila[;d ,d vyx Js.kh gS] ftlds vkèkkj ij Hkh vYila[;d cgqy dsUnzksa dk fofu'p; fd;k tkrk gSA Li"Vr% vYila[;d rFkk cgqla[;d leqnk;ksa dh fiNM+h ,oa vR;Ur fiNM+h tkfr;ksa dks ,d lkFk tksM+uk bl voèkkj.kk ds izfrdwy gksxk] vU;Fkk vYila[;d cgqyrk okyk dksbZ dsUnz fuèkkZfjr ugha gks ldsxkA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa ;g Li"V gS fd bl dsUnz ds fy, dh x;h eSfiax voSèkkfud gS vkSj bl izdkj ifjokndÙkkZ ds }kjk yxk, x, vkjksi lgh gSA mijksDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dsUnz la[;k 32 ds fy, foi{kh cchrk nsoh ds p;u dks rRdky izHkko ls jn~n fd;k tkrk gS vkSj cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh dks funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd os iwoZ eSfiax dh =qfV dk fujkdj.k djrs gq, bl dsUnz ds fy, cgqyrk dk iqufuZèkkZj.k djsa vkSj iwoZ vkosfndkvksa ds chp ls gh p;u dh dk;Zokgh fu;ekuqlkj vfèkdre ,d ekg ds Hkhrj iw.kZ djsaA** 4. The private respondent no. 6 herein had then challenged the said order dated 29.10.2012 before this Court by filing a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 21738 of 2012, which was disposed off by an order dated 05.12.2012 granting liberty to the private respondent no. 6 to file appeal whereafter Anganwari Appeal No. 354 of 2012 was filed by the private respondent no. 6 before the learned Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran. The learned Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran has, vide order dated 07.04.2014, set aside the order dated 29.10.2012, passed by the District Magistrate, Saran, operative portion whereof is reproduced herein below:— “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, pleadings made by the learned counsels for the parties in support of their respective claims, it is seen that the main question in this case is to decide whether the mapping register prepared by CDPO, Issuapur for centre No. 32 was correct or wrong and subsequently whether the selection made on that basis is valid or not. The learned Collector while hearing the matter asked for a report from the concerned CDPO and also directed the DPO, Saran to seek instructions from the Director ICDS only with a view to arrive at the correct findings of facts. This obviously shows t14hat he has some doubts about claim raised before him by the present respondent regarding the discrepancy of the mapping register and it was for that reason he tried his best to get clarify the same from different sources but unfortunately he could not be informed. However, it is quite surprising as to how he decided and held the said Mapping register to be wrongly prepared and on that assumptions he cancelled the appointment of the appellant in absence of any reply to the letter of the DPO, Saran. What was needed at that time for him to get himself fully satisfied from the ICDS or to rely on the letter of GAD, Patna. I find that the learned counsel of the appellant is correct in saying that in absence of any clear instruction in the guidelines, the D.M. ought to have relied on the said letter of GAD, Patna which clearly shows the different castes included in the list of EBC and BC irrespective of their religion. It is also seen in that letter that both Hindus and Muslims have been included in the common list of EBC and BC. It is also seen in that letter that both Hindus and Muslims have been included in the common list of EBC and BC. As the present appellant was selected on the basis of being a candidate of the majority population of EBC and on the basis of the mapping register prepared according to the direction contained in the said Govt. Letter, her selection as Anganbari Sevika cannot be disputed now only on the ground of irrelevant averments and unsubstantiated facts. For the aforementioned reasons the impugned order of D.M., Saran dated 29.10.2012 in Anganbari Case No. 04/2012 is not sustainable, hence the same is set aside.” 5. The aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran dated 07.04.2014 was challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 9200 of 2014 and a learned Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 04.12.2015 passed in CWJC No. 9200 of 2014, had remanded the matter back to the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra, whereafter the matter was again heard by the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra and by an order dated 02.01.2016, the Commissioner, Saran Division, Chapra has disposed off the petition filed by the appellant herein with an observation that there was no occasion to review his earlier order dated 07.04.2014. The operative portion of the said order dated 02.01.2016 is reproduced herein below:— “Considering the entire facts of the case, respective arguments forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the case record and the earlier order dated 07.04.2014 of this Court as well as para-13 of the writ petition, it is seen that the accusation made in the said para has not been proved vis-a-vis the material/document available in the case file. So far as the validity of the order dated 07.04.2014 of this Court is concerned, this Court find great difficulty to review the same as not express provision has been prescribed in the guidelines of ICDS that an order passed by an authority is competent to review the same. Moreover, it is a settled position in law that an authority passing the order can not review the same unless the same is permitted by an express provision in the Acts or Rules. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, I am not constrained to review the earlier order passed by this Court on 07.04.2014. Accordingly, the petition filed by Indu Devi on 14.12.15 is disposed of.” 6. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, I am not constrained to review the earlier order passed by this Court on 07.04.2014. Accordingly, the petition filed by Indu Devi on 14.12.15 is disposed of.” 6. The said order dated 02.01.2016 was then challenged by the appellant by filing the aforesaid writ petition bearing CWJC No. 2700 of 2016. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned Commissioner is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the respondent authorities have wrongly clubbed the backwards of minority class with the backward class and extremely backward class, de hors the rules, for the purposes of preparing mapping register and deciding the majority community. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent- State has referred to a letter dated 21.07.2010 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna wherein a list of different caste under the category of extremely backward class and backward class has been specified and according to the same both Hindus and Muslims have been included in the common list of EBC and BC and the mapping register has also been prepared as per the said guidelines contained in letter dated 21.07.2010. It is also submitted that as far as centre no. 32 is concerned, the same belongs to majority class belonging to the Extremely Backward Class and the private respondent no. 6 belongs to the Extremely Backward Class whereas the appellant herein belongs to the backward class. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that in the original proceedings being conducted by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra, the District Magistrate had called for a report from the Child Development Project Officer, Ishuapur, Saran, in response whereof a report dated 24.05.2012 was submitted and it was explained as to how the selection of the respondent no. 6 herein was just, legal and correct, nonetheless, it appears that the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra was not satisfied with the report of the C.D.P.O., Isuapur, hence he had called for a report from the District Programme Officer, Saran, however, without waiting for the said report, the District Magistrate, Saran had terminated the services of the private respondent no. 6, by an order dated 29.10.2012, without there being any material to do so. 6, by an order dated 29.10.2012, without there being any material to do so. It is thus submitted that there is no merit in the present appeal, hence the same is fit to be dismissed. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. At the outset, it would be relevant to quote the relevant portion of the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2018 herein below:— “Undisputed facts leading to the impugned order present in the contest is that following an advertisement issued in the year 2010 for filling up the post of Anganbari Sevika, Centre No.32, Isuapur Block in the district of Saran that the petitioner, the private respondent and some others participated. However, since the majority class determined for the area in the mapping register classified it as extremely backward category that the private respondent placed at sl.no.3 of the merit list present at Annexure-1, was appointed which aggrieved by the petitioner coming from the backward category to question the same before the District Magistrate, Saran, Chapra in Case No.4 of 2011. The District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra vide his order dated 29.10.2012 upheld the grievance raised by the petitioner to quash the appointment of the private respondent, inter alia, on the ground of error occurring in the mapping register. The concerned authorities were directed to carry out the exercise afresh for determining the majority class and make appointment accordingly. The private respondent moved in appeal before the Commissioner, Saran Division in Anganbari Appeal No.354 of 2012 and vide his exhaustive order passed on 7.4.2014, the appeal was allowed to uphold the mapping register and consequentially the appointment of the private respondent. It was now the turn of the petitioner to come before this Court in C.W.J.C. No.9200 of 2014 and a Co-ordinate Bench in consideration of the grievance raised vide order passed on 4.12.2015 at Annexure-5 remitted the matter for fresh opinion by the Commissioner on the dispute. Noticeably the earlier order of the Commissioner was not interfered with by the Bench. It is on remand of the matter and not finding review jurisdiction vested in him that the Commissioner has disposed of the matter vide his order passed on 2.1.2016 present at Annexure-6 thus upholding his earlier order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is on remand of the matter and not finding review jurisdiction vested in him that the Commissioner has disposed of the matter vide his order passed on 2.1.2016 present at Annexure-6 thus upholding his earlier order. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The facts are not in dispute rather the dispute is limited to the determination of majority class. The exercise undertaken for appointment of Anganbari Sevika initiates with determination of the majority class in the area before the vacancy is put up for selection and thus the petitioner was much aware of this determination when she participated in the exercise. Though the District Magistrate, Saran had upheld the grievance raised by the petitioner on the alleged error in the mapping register, but the Commissioner, Saran Division on examination of the record is not satisfied by the opinion expressed by the District Magistrate to upset the same and while allowing the mapping register earlier determined for the area as extremely backward class, he has approved the appointment of the private respondent coming from the majority class. In my opinion, such exercise are best left to the authorities of Government and the Commissioner having exercised his jurisdiction to confirm the factual position that the majority class in the area is extremely Backward, this Court is not persuaded to enter into the dispute for holding any enquiry.” 10. We find that while the appellant herein belongs to the BC category, the private respondent no. 6 belongs to the EBC category and since Centre No. 32 is a majority class area of E.B.C. category, as per the mapping register, the private respondent no. 6 was selected as Sevika. Admittedly, the determination of majority class, qua the Centre No. 32, as EBC category has not been annulled either by any authority or by any Court of law till date. In fact the C.D.P.O., Isuapur had prepared the maping register for Centre No. 32 and the different caste population were counted, according to which the total number of persons belonging to different caste were determined as follows:— General -24 E.B.C. -548 B.C. -387 and S.C. -155. 11. It is thus apparent that Centre No. 32 has majority of extremely backward class category and the private respondent no. 6 being an EBC candidate, was rightly appointed as Sevika by the Aam Sabha. 11. It is thus apparent that Centre No. 32 has majority of extremely backward class category and the private respondent no. 6 being an EBC candidate, was rightly appointed as Sevika by the Aam Sabha. It is also apparent from the order dated 29.10.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra that no cogent reason, whatsoever has been furnished to hold that the maping in question, carried out pertaining to Centre No. 32, is illegal whereas on the contrary, it appears that the same has been done as per the Government’s circular dated 21.07.2010. All the aforesaid aspect of the matter has been duly considered by the learned Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran, both in his order dated 07.04.2014 as also in the one dated 02.01.2016. Yet another aspect of the matter is that such exercise, pertaining to determination of factual position regarding the majority class in the area in question, are required to be undertaken and determined by the authorities of the Government and the learned Commissioner, Saran Division, Saran having exercised his jurisdiction to confirm the factual position to the effect that the majority class at Centre No. 32 in question is extremely backward class, it does not lie within the domain of this Court to either interfere or upset the same without any cogent reason to do so. 12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons mentioned herein above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment dated 08.01.2018 passed in CWJC No. 2700 of 2016, hence the present appeal stands dismissed.