IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12227 of 2011 Tetra Devi W/o Anil Kumar Yadav, R/o village- Bahera, PO- Chandanpur Block & PS- Tilouthu, Distt- Rohtas-----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram 3. The District Programme Officer, Rohtas (Sasaram) 4. The C.D.P.O. Block –Tilouthu Distt- Rohtas (Sasaram)-----------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 23.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A so called inspection was carried out of Centre No. 25 at Bahera Panchayat in Chandanpur located at Tilouthu in the district of Rohtas. The authority found the centre to be closed and the take home ration not having been distributed to the beneficiaries. This led to removal both of the Anganbari Sewika as well as Sahiyaka. Anganbari Sewika approached the High Court by filing CWJC No. 13414 of 2009 wherein after taking into consideration the relevant circular and the guidelines the High Court held that Anganbari Sewika was not given opportunity of hearing and as such there was violation of natural justice. The Court decided to intervene, remanded the matter to the District Programme Officer to pass a fresh appropriate speaking order in accordance with law within a time frame. The order dated 4.3.2010 came to be passed by the District Programme Officer, Rohtas in the case of Anganbari Sewika on remand by the High Court. Finding is that no proper inspection and enquiry was carried out of the centre by CDPO and therefore the finding given by respondent no. 4 that the centre is closed or not 2 functioning was found to be misplaced. The explanation offered by Sewika was accepted which led to relief being granted to her. Present petitioner is Sahiyaka of the same centre. According to the counsel for the petitioner that she was sailing in the same boat as that of Sewika and the factual position is being identical there is no reason why she should suffer the punishment of removal, more so when kind of finding which came to be given by District Programme Officer, Rohtas. Annexure-1 therefore will have to be quashed. Writ is allowed in light of reasoning and rational given above in the earlier part of the order with a direction that petitioner would be reinstated within a reasonable time frame. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)