IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9595 of 2009 RINA KUMARI, WIFE OF SHRI CHANDRAMA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST SADOKHAR, P.S. CHENARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS, AT SASARAM, AT PRESENT POSTED AS ANGANBARI SEWIKA CENTRE NO.62, SADOKHAR GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.S. SADOKHAR, DISTRICT ROHTAS AT SASARAM---PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 3. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM. 4. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, BIHAR. 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, SASARAM, DISTRICT ROHTAS. 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER, CHENARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS. 7. THE MUKHIYA, SADOKHAR GRAM PANCHAYAT, P.S. CHENARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS. 8. SALSA DEVI, WIFE OF BINDA PASWAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SADOKHAR, P.S. CHENARI, DISTRICT ROHTAS------RESPONODENTS. ----------- 02. 12.08.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sewika in terms of order dated 29.10.2004, Annexure-1. Later she has been removed by the Child Development Project Officer, Chenari Rohtas under order bearing letter No. 112 dated 9.7.2009, Annexure-4 in compliance of the instructions of the District Magistrate, Rohtas bearing letter No. 317 dated 8.7.2009 on the ground that along with the petitioner case of private respondent no. 8 was considered and respondent no.8 was recommended for appointment but on account of manoeuvering of the petitioner, appointment letter was given to the petitioner, the District Magistrate, Rohtas having appreciated such contention raised on behalf of respondent no.8 passed orders contained in letter dated 8.7.2009 in compliance whereof petitioner has been removed under the impugned order dated 9.7.2009, Annexure-4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the finding of the District Magistrate as contained in letter dated 8.7.2009 - 2 - is absolutely incorrect, which is evident from perusal of Annexure-1 itself as also the records connected therewith. 4. Instead of appreciating the contents of Annexure-1 and calling for the records myself, I deem it expedient to direct the petitioner to file appeal against the order dated 8/9.7.2009, Annexure- 4 before the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtas at Sasaram. When such order was dictated learned counsel submitted that petitioner has not been given the copy of letter dated 8.7.2009, although he has applied for grant of such copy. 5. Let the District Magistrate, Rohtas ensure furnishing of the copy of letter dated 8.7.2009 to the petitioner at the earliest in any case within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of this order, whereafter the petitioner shall file appeal against the orders dated 9.7.2009 and 8.7.2009 before the Divisional Commissioner, Rohtas at Sasaram, who shall be obliged to call for the records of the case and thereafter pass appropriate orders in the light of the submissions noted above as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the memo of appeal. 6. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ (V.N.Sinha, J.)