IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7094 of 2009 1. GUDDI KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI AKLESH KUMAR, R/V SUMERA, GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASI, BLOCK ARWAL, DISTRICT ARWAL. 2. RENU KUMARI, WIFE OF OM PRAKASH KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAM LAGAN BIGAHA, GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASI, DISTRICT ARWAL. 3. URMILA KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI BUDHI NATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF MAKHDUMABAD, GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 4. ANUPAMA KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI SHYAM AMRITRAJ, R/V PARASI, GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 5. MADHU KUMARI, WIFE OF JAY PRAKASH KESHRI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAKIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 6. SARITA KUMARI, WIFE OF SANTOSH PRASAD, R/S PARASI, P.S. PARASI, GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASI, DISTRICT ARWAL. 7. JYOTI KUMARI, WIFE OF RAJESH KUMAR ANAND, R/V PARASI, GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASI, P.S. PARASI, DISTRICT ARWAL. 8. SMT. MANJU KUMARI, WIFE OF MITHILESH THAKUR, R/V AND POST PARASI, P.S. PARASI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL------PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARWAL. 4. SRI VIMLA NAND JHA, THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ARWAL. 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFIC ER, BLOCK ARWAL, DISTRICT ARWAL. 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOOPMENT OFFICER, BLOCK ARWAL, DISTRICT ARWAL. 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL. 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT PARASI, BLOCK AND DISTRICT ARWAL-------RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 29.06.2009. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners were appointed as Aanganwari Sewika in the year 2007 as the earlier appointment made was found illegal in the light of the directions contained in Annexure-1 bearing Memo No. 7 dated 27.7.2007. Those whose appointment was found illegal under Annexure-1 approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9774 of 2007 and other analogous matters asserting that before they were removed from their - 2 - engagement as Aanganwari Sewika they were not given any opportunity of being heard. This Court under orders dated 4.2.2008, Annexure-7 disposed of the writ applications directing the authorities to comply the principles of natural justice and consider their case in accordance with law. In compliance of the directions of this Court contained in order dated 4.2.2008, Annexure-7, the District Magistrate, Arwal has considered the case of Puspa Devi and others and they have been reinstated under order dated 15.9.2008, Annexure-6. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that while passing the order dated 15.9.2008, Annexure-6, petitioners of the present writ application have not been given opportunity of being heard, although they were serving on the same post on which Puspa Devi and others have been reinstated. Raising the same grievance petitioners have moved the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya against the order dated 15.9.2008, Annexure-6 and the matter is still pending before the Divisional Commissioner as he has issued interim directions as would appear from memo bearing Letter No. 349 dated 6.5.2009, copy whereof has been placed before this Court during hearing of this application. 4. Let the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya consider the grievance of the petitioners against the order dated 15.9.2008, Annexure-6 in accordance with law together with the request of the petitioners for grant of interim - 3 - relief as according to the petitioners, the appointment of Puspa Devi and others, who moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9774 of 2007 and other analogous matters was found erroneous, illegal and without giving opportunity to the petitioners to satisfy that the illegality committed in the case of Puspa Devi and others still subsist, petitioners could not have been removed to make room for Puspa Devi and others. Let the Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya consider and dispose of the matter as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 5. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)