IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12400 of 2010 SARITA KUMARI @ ANITA DEVI W/O KRISHNA CHANDRA SINGH @ KRISHNA CHANDRA R/O VILL JAI PRAKASH NAGAR, WARD NO.2, BLOCK & DISTT-AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR AURANGABAD 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER AURANGABAD 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER AURANGABAD SADAR, AURANGABAD 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AURANGABAD 7. SMT. BHARTI DEVI W/O AMIT KUMAR SHANKER R/O MOH JAY PRAKASH NAGAR, P.S.AURANGABAD, DISTT-AURANGABAD ----------- 2. 25/02/2011 Petitioner’s engagement as Anganbari Sevika was cancelled by the District Programme Officer by order dated 15.1.2010, as contained in Annexure-4, on the ground that irregularities were committed in the engagement of the petitioner. In view of authoritative pronouncement by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabha Kumari Devi Vs. State of Bihar [2010(2) PLJR 374], in the matter of selection, the District Programme Officer has no authority to hold enquiry and cancel engagement on the ground of any irregularity committed therein. From Annexure-5, it appears that the petitioner had filed her 2 appeal before the Collector which was rejected only on the ground of being time barred as the order of District Programme Officer was passed on 15.1.2010 whereas petitioner had filed the appeal on 30.3.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had in fact filed the appeal before the Collector within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the District Programme Officer. Therefore, the same was filed well within time. Be that as it may, the District Programme Officer having no authority to hold selection process illegal and cancel engagement made thereunder, order of the District Programme Officer is itself a nullity. Therefore, the Collector should have entertained the appeal of the petitioner on merits, if not in the form of appeal then in the form of complaint preferred before him under the Guidelines. In the circumstances, impugned order of the Collector dated 4.5.2010, annexed as Annexure-5, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Collector to reconsider the appeal/representation of the petitioner 3 on merits and decide the same in accordance with law within the time limit fixed by the Guidelines for hearing such complaints, after hearing the parties. The writ application is accordingly disposed of. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)