IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6385 of 2009 MANIKA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 20/5/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. This writ petition is directed against an order passed by Collector of the district holding the selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Angan Bari Sevika to be bad and the appellate order of the Commissioner confirming the aforesaid order of the Collector. Counsel for the petitioner would submit that proceeding of the meeting in question of Aam Sabha, in which selection of the petitioner was made, was not contrary to the Gram panchayat rules which itself envisages that in absence of Mukhiya, the Up-Mukhiya would preside such meeting. In fact, there was no question of delegation of such power to Up-Mukhiya and weighing of such reason with the Collector of the district for declaring the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika in such meeting presided by Up Mukhia to be bad, is wholly a perverse view which unfortunately was also affirmed by the Commissioner in appeal. The counsel next contended that the proceeding as with regard to cancellation of appointment of Anganbari Sevika as per guidelines of the government had to be necessarily initiated on the report of the officer of the rank of Subdivisional Officer or any higher authority, but in the case of 2 the petitioner no such report was brought to the notice of the Collector and therefore the Collector of the district had acted in an illegal manner while passing the impugned order and the appellate authority has ignored to decide this vital issue raised in the appeal. Counsel for the State while supporting the impugned orders has submitted that these issues would hardly vitiate the decision for removal of the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sevika in view of finding recorded therein that the norms of selection on the post of Anganbari Sevika, while appointing the petitioner was completely violated. This Court, in fact, would find that the very basis of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Angan Bari Sevika was in teeth of the mandatory guidelines issued by the Government. Such appointment has to be essentially made on the basis of mapping of the area and after determining the majority representing population in the concerned area. The Collector of the district in this context had found that there was no document to show that mapping was done or the determination of majority of population in the manner prescribed for appointment of Anganbari Sevika was ever made. This conclusion of the Collector gathered on perusal of the connected records could not be demolished by the petitioner either before the appellate authority or even before this Court with the help of any documentary evidence. As such the very criteria for selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika which was made a reserved post for a 3 Scheduled caste candidate was illegal. These basic infirmities in selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika violating the norms laid down in the scheme and guidelines of the Government assumed still greater significance when it was found that a decision to that effect in favour of the petitioner was taken in the very first meeting of Gram Sabha in absence of regularly elected Mukhia who had himself taken a stand both the Collector and Commissioner that he had never authorized the Up-Mukhia to convene or preside such meeting of Gram Sabha. In the opinion of this Court when it is the Collector of the district who under the guidelines and policy framed by the State Government has been vested with power to take final decision regarding termination of Anganbari Sevika on the report submitted by any authority and the order in question has been passed by the Collector the same cannot be faulted even on the ground that such report filed against the petitioner was submitted by an authority below the rank of S.D.O. As a matter of fact this writ application, in absence of Rajbans Singh, Sunil Kumar, Preeti Kumari and Sanju Devi, all of whom are said to have complained of the illegalities in the appointment of the petitioner and were present in the proceeding before the Collector and Commissioner, is even otherwise not maintainable and is fit to be dismissed on the ground of non joinder of necessary parties. However as this Court has found no 4 flaw in the impugned orders even on merits, there would be hardly any scope for interference in the two impugned orders. Before parting with, this much however can be observed in favour of the petitioner that her case would receive due consideration in the fresh process of selection to be undertaken for filling up the vacant post in question and her cancellation of earlier appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika by itself will not be used as a circumstance to deny her appointment on the said post if she is found to be the best of the lot as per the norms and conditions of eligibility fixed by the State Government in its policy for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. With the aforesaid observations, this writ application is dismissed. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)