IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1991 of 2009 GEETA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 10.2.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of termination of her service dated 10.12.2008 passed by the District Programme Officer, Rohtas, whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled on the ground of some discrepancy in her selection. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Programme Officer has no authority to terminate the services of Anganwari Sevika under the Scheme framed by the State Government; rather such power has been vested in only the Collector of the District. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, points out that the petitioner has already moved the Collector making a grievance as would appear from Annexure 5 to the writ application. This Court would find that the facts, which have to be examined by someone 2 in a non-partisan manner for deciding as to whether the selection and appointment of the petitioner was correct or not. Such exercise can definitely be gone into by the Collector of the District, who as per the petitioner himself is the prescribed authority to decide such dispute. That being so, the Collector of Rohtas District is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 27.12.2008, as contained in Annexure 5, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. The Collector of the district before taking a final decision must also give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as also to the complainant Geeta Devi. In the event the Collector of the district reaffirms the order passed by the District Programme Officer he will also issue a direction for fresh selection in which the petitioner will also be given opportunity to participate but in case the Collector comes to a conclusion that the selection of the petitioner was made in the prescribed manner and the termination order 3 passed by the District Programme Officer was bad, he will pass an order for reinstatement of the petitioner in service. The Collector in any event will be required to pass a reasoned order and he must do so within the aforementioned period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that till the case of the petitioner is decided by the Collector of the district, no fresh selection will be made on the post in question held by the petitioner. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/