IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.325 of 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 5421 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 1399 of 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 325 of 2011 ==================================================== Neetu Devi wife of Avinash Kumar Singh, resident of Village- Badki Mahuli, P.S.-Kargahar, District-Rohtas. …. …. Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. The District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Kargahar, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. 6. Smt. Laxmina Devi, Mukhia of Village- Badki Mahuli, P.S.-Kargahar, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Indu Bhushan, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Bijay Shankar Choubey, A.C. to SC-8 ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2. 22.2.2011. Learned advocate Mr. Indu Bhushan appears for the appellant. He states that the respondent no.6 Mukhiya is neither a necessary nor a proper party; no relief is claimed against her. He, therefore, seeks leave to delete the respondent no.6. Leave is granted. The name of the respondent no.6 be deleted from the cause title of the appeal and the application. The delay of 33 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory - 2 - Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No. 325 of 2011: With the consent of the learned advocates the appeal is heard and decided today. This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 6th December 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 5421 of 2010 insofar as though the writ petition is allowed the learned single Judge has not made consequential order allowing the writ petitioner to join her duty. Feeling aggrieved the writ petitioner has preferred the present appeal. The appellant was appointed as Anganbari Sevika under the Integrated Child Development Project in the Anganbari Kendra, Mahuli, Panchayat Dumra, Block-Kargahar, Dsitrict-Rohtas in the year 2006. Under communication dated 17th September 2009 sent by the Child Development Project Officer, Kargahar, District- Rohtas the petitioner‟s appointment was cancelled. She was further instructed not to make withdrawal from the account of “Poshahar”. It appears that the aforesaid order was made pursuant to the inspection of the Anganbari Kendra made by the Child Development Project Officer and the Mukhiya on 15th August 2008. Feeling aggrieved by the cancellation of her appointment the appellant preferred the above C.W.J.C. No. 5421 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was the grievance of the appellant that the impugned order was made by the Child Development Project Officer without the authority of law and without following the principles of natural justice. - 3 - Learned single Judge has accepted the plea of the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order has been quashed by the learned single Judge. Nevertheless, the appellant has been directed to appear before the District Programme Officer, Rohtas within three weeks from the date of the order and to file representation for restoring her service as Anganbari Sevika at the Centre No. 89. It is further directed that if such a representation is made the District Programme Officer shall hold an enquiry and give reasonable opportunity to the appellant to explain her conduct in respect of which he may have received any complaint and to make fresh order. It is this later direction which is under challenge before us. It is not in dispute that the order of cancellation of the selection of the appellant as Anganbari Sevika has been made in violation of principles of natural justice. Under the instructions issued in respect of the Anganbari Centers on 25th July 2008 and modified on 14th June 2010, it is the District Programme Officer who has been empowered to take disciplinary action against the Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika but not without following the principles of natural justice. In the present case, it is not in dispute that under communication dated 17th September 2009 the appellant was informed about cancellation of her selection without following due process and in violation of the principles of natural justice. In our opinion, once the communication dated 17th September 2009 was set aside by the learned single Judge the appellant was entitled to consequential relief of reinstatement as Anganbari Sevika. In our - 4 - opinion, the learned single Judge has erred in not granting the consequential relief and in relegating the appellant to make representation before the District Programme Officer though there was no proceeding initiated against the appellant. In above view of the matter, the order of the learned single Judge is modified. The respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant as Anganbari Sevika within three weeks from today. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the District Programme Officer from taking any disciplinary action against the appellant, if necessary, in accordance with law. We make it clear that the appellant will not be entitled to wages on the principle of „no work no pay‟. However, in the event the appellant is not reinstated within three weeks, as directed, the appellant will be entitled to wages commencing from 16th March 2011. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. The parties will bear their own cost. Interlocutory Application no. 1399 of 2011 stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)