IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.711 of 2010 1. ASHA DEVI W/O SRI RAMESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL KURWA GHAT (JALPA TOLA), P.S. SARSI,DISTT-PURNEA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER PURNEA 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BANMANKHI, PURNEA 4. THE MUKHIYA , GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ JIYANGANJ,DISTT- PURNEA 5. THE SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ JIYANGANJ, BANMANKHI,DISTT-PURNEA ----------- 2 2.7.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Petitioner was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika on the basis of the resolution of Aam Sabha dated 9.5.2007. She completed her training in terms of the guidelines and started discharging the duty of Anganbari Sevika. Subsequently one Sanjan Kumari made a complaint before the Child Development Project Officer assailing the selection of the petitioner. Petitioner’s case is that Sanjan Kumari had not made any objection in the matters of petitioner selection before the Aam Sabha. The objection made by Sanjan Kumari was that petitioner is not residing within the feeder area of Anganbari sevika. In the light of this objection Child Development Project Officer conducted an enquiry and 2 the District Programme Officer, Purnea passed an order cancelling selection of the petitioner. The entire process of cancellation of selection by the respondents has been challenged by the petitioner stating that it has been completely in violation of Clause 8(3) of the Guidelines relating to selection of Anganbari Sevika. Since the petitioner has already been nominated for training and undergone training, any objection regarding selection could have been decided by the District Magistrate. Clause 8(3) provides the procedure for disposal of a complain regarding selection of Anganbari Sevika. The District Programme Officer on finding of such complains, will conduct an enquiry and submit report before the Collector. The Collector, will issue notice to the complainant and the candidate selected for the post and giving opportunity to the parties will pass a reasoned order within one month from the date of receipt of such objection. Since it was not done and the District Programme Officer, not vested with such power under the guidelines, has cancelled selection of the petitioner, the impugned order has been assailed as completely 3 illegal and without jurisdiction. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that selection of the petitioner was made by the Mukhiya ignoring the mapping Register prepared under the provisions of the guidelines for selection of Anganbari Sevika. Sanjan Kumari had higher marks and she was the resident of feeder area where the centre is situated, ignoring all these, petitioner was selected. It is not in dispute that the impugned order cancelling selection of the petitioner has been passed by the District Programme Officer, who is not vested with such jurisdiction under the guidelines. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Clause II of the Guidelines issued on 25.7.2008, to show that District Programme Officer is vested with the power to terminate the services of Anganbari Sevika. This issue has already been settled and decided in a decision reported in the case of Prabha Kumari Devi vs. State of Bihar and others ( 2010 (2) PLJR 374) wherein paragraph 11 it has been held as follows:- “When a selection process is interdicted or 4 annulled or declared to be non est, a high authority has to be endowed with the responsibility and accordingly the State Government has bestowed the authority on the District Magistrate. As far as Guideline 11 of the second set of Guidelines issued on 25.7.2008 is concerned, it exclusively relates to the duties and responsibilities of the District Programme Officer. Guideline 11 deals with the irregularities of the Anganbari Sevika at Kendra. The said Officer has been authorized to take appropriate action, even to remove her. The same is subject to appeal before the District Magistrate. The District Programme Officer has not been conferred any power to intervene at any stage of selection. His role comes into play qua irregularities at the Kendra. Thus, exercise of jurisdiction is distinctly compartmentalized and there can be no shadow of doubt, what has been stated in 2006 Guidelines have nothing to do with circulars/Guidelines issued for determination of duties and responsibilities of the District Programme Officer. Hence, the reliance on the said Guidelines by Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the State does not deserve acceptation.” 5 Considering this fact the impugned order passed by the District Programme Officer cancelling selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika is quashed. However, it is made clear that in case there is any objection, that may be taken up and decided in accordance with the provisions under the Guidelines. (Mridula Mishra,J.) A.Kumar