IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11062 of 2010 1. Smt.Usha Rani W/O Sri Manish Kumar R/O Vill Maheshpur, Bausi Road, Bhagalpur, P.O.Mirajan Hatt, Distt-Bhagalpur Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Welfare Of Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe Govt. Of Bihar , Patna 3. The Chairman, Bihar Mahadali Vikash Mission Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate Bhagalpur 5. The Commission Municipal Corporation Bhagalpur 6. The Sub Divisional Officer Bhagalpur Sadar, Bhagalpur 7. The Project Officer-Cum-District Welfare Officer Bhagalpur ----------- 2. 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The controversy raised relates to the claim for appointment as a Vikash Mitra. The selected candidate Geeta Kumari has not been impleaded as a party respondent. The writ petition could have been dismissed on that ground alone. The grievance of the petitioner is that Geeta Kumari secured first position in the panel above her by obtaining false residence certificates. The petitioner has represented against the same acknowledged by the respondents in their counter affidavit and enquiry ordered into the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed the guidelines issued by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Welfare Department, Government of Bihar under the Bihar Mahadalit 2 Vikas Mission dealing with the appointment, duration and termination procedures. The guidelines provide that the appointment is to be for 11 months only. It may or may not be renewed. They shall not be Government servants. Any enquiry for an appointment obtained on basis of wrong information has to be conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer or the District Project Officer upon which final orders are to be passed by the District Magistrate. Needless to state that if the State Government has authorized any other authority under the guidelines subsequently to investigate also such person or authority shall have jurisdiction to examine whether it be the D.C.L.R. or any other person. But no person not authorized by the Government can hold such an enquiry and any report by such a person cannot be relied upon by the District Magistrate to act upon. Needless to state that at the stage of such enquiry, any aggrieved including the appointed person has necessarily to be associated and given an opportunity to defend as also before the District Magistrate before final orders are passed. No orders on any enquiry behind the back of the selected candidate or without hearing the selected candidate 3 can be made. If the appointment is for a period of 11 months only, any controversy with regard to the claim has to be decided in context of 11 months under which the appointment came to be made. Any renewal of the appointment shall be a fresh cause of action, it being an inchoate right unless allegations of fraud and forgery are made in having obtained the appointment. It appears from the counter affidavit that the District Magistrate has already asked for reports, with regard to the allegations made by the petitioner against the appointment of Geeta Kumari. Let the necessary enquiry be done in accordance with law as discussed in the present order and after hearing the petitioner and Geeta Kumari, final appropriate orders be passed within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)