IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6172 of 2010 PUNAM KUMARI, W/O DILIP KUMAR THAKUR, VILLAGE-BALEHA, MAHORATH, POST-RASALPUR, P.S.-BAJPATTI, DISTRICT-SITAMARHI. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COLLECTOR, SITAMARHI. 3. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, SITAMARHI. 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PUPARI. 5. THE C.D.P.O., BAJPATTI, SITAMARHI. 6. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ RASALPUR. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 10.12.2010 Petitioner has moved this Court only because, on account of some general letter of District Programme Officer dated 25.2.2009 addressed to the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), annexed as Annexure-5, the joining of the petitioner is not being accepted nor she is being sent for training, inspite of letters issued in this regard. From Annexure-5, it appears that the Aam Sabha of the concerned gram Panchayat had proposed to add some more names for beneficiary area of the Anganwari Centre no.51. That proposal was sent to the District Programme Officer for approval. By this letter the District Programme Officer authorized the CDPO to consider the proposal, inspect the Centre and satisfy himself as to why the changes were made in the beneficiary area and take decision 2 from his own level. It is also stated in the letter that if the merit list was less than one year old the selection process should be proceeded with and completed. However, in case, the merit list was older than one year, fresh process should be started for selection as per the 2006 Guidelines. The case of the petitioner is that there is no allegation of any irregularity committed in the selection process. In fact, the selection process was completed and the petitioner was selected and was deputed for training which is evident from Annexure-1 and 2. However, before the petitioner could proceed for training this letter of the District Programme Officer reached the office of the CDPO and everything got stalled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was selected from the merit list and letters were issued to him of her selection and for sending her for training, question does not arise of the list being more than one year old and no fresh selection process is required to be initiated for appointment of Anganwari Sevika of Centre no.51. It appears that this fact was not 3 available with the District Programme Officer when he issued that letter. Therefore, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the District Programme Officer, enclosing copies of Annexure-1 and 2, the letters of her selection and orders of her deputation for her training, and to satisfy him that on completion of the selection process, she had already been selected as Anganwari Sevika for Centre no.51. Upon filing of the representation by the petitioner, the District Programme Officer will consider the matter and, if he finds no irregularities in the appointment of the petitioner, shall issue appropriate orders for joining of the petitioner and for sending her for training. It will be appropriate that the District Programme Officer considers the representation of the petitioner and passes order in accordance with law within one month from the date of filing of the representation. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)