IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14722 of 2009 1. RANJANA KUMARI W/O SRI BHUSAN KUMAR SINGH VILL.- HARIPUR, P.O.- HARIPUR, P.S.- SONBARSA KACHARI, DISTT.- SAHARSA AT PRESENT WORKING IN ANGANWADI PANCHUTOLA SAMUDAI BHAWAN 2. ABHA RANI W/O MANI BHUSAN YADAV VILL.- AMARPUR, P.O.- AMARPUR, P.S.- SONBARSA KACHARI, DISTT.- SAHARSA AT PRESENT WORKING IN ANGANWADI CENTER SAH TOLA, AMARPUR, BOBBY DEVI 3. BOBBY DEVI W/O ISHWARCHAND VILL.- AMARPUR, P.O.- AMARPUR, P.S.- SONBARSA KACHARI, DISTT.- SAHARSA AT PRESENT WORKING IN ANGANWADI CENTRE CHABI TOLA, AMARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER KOSI DIVISION, SAHARSA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SAHARSA 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER SAHARSA SADAR AT SAHARSA, P.O. AND P.S.- SAHARSA AT DISTT.- SAHARSA 5. DEPUTY DIRECTOR(WELFARE) KOSI DIVISION, SAHARSA 6. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER KAHRA, P.S.- SAHARSA, DISTT.- SAHARSA 7. THE MUKHIYA OF AMARPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT AT P.O.- AMARPUR, P.S.- SONBARSA KACHARI, DISTT.- SAHARSA 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF AMARPUR GRAM PANCHAYAT AT P.O.- AMARPUR, P.S.- SONBARSA KACHARI, DISTT.- SAHARSA 9. SADHANA KUMARI W/O RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA R/O PANCHUTOLA, AMARPUR, P.S.- SONBARSA KACHARI, DISTT.- SAHARSA 10. KUMARI CHANDSHIRI W/O SUJIT KUMAR W/O UTTARBARI TOLA, AMARPUR, P.S.- SONBARSA KACHARI, DISTT.- SAHARSA 11. KUMARI PINKI W/O SRI CHANDRAMANI CHANDRA R/O SAHTOLA, AMARPUR, P.S.- SONBARSA KACHARI, DISTT.- SAHARSA 12. POONAM PRIYA W/O LATE NAWAL KISHORE SAH R/O CHABHITOLA (NEAR MANDIR), AMARPUR, P.S.- SONBARSA KACHARI, DISTT.- SAHARSA ----------- 2. 19.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State. In the nature of the order it is not considered necessary to issue notice to respondent nos. 9 to 12 as their interest shall be adequately protected. To stay the operation of the impugned order dated 12.9.2009 and direct maintenance of status quo between the 2 petitioners and the private respondents, when this petition shall be taken up for hearing years later as today the Court is hearing writ petition of the year 2002-03 shall not only be detrimental to the interest of the petitioners and the private respondents but may also adequately affect the welfare scheme of the Government as adequate protection to the petitoner shall have to be also directed so that the claims of the petitioner or the private respondents is not affected by creation of a third party right and new appointment in the meantime. The private respondents were appointed as Anganwari Sevika. The District Magistrate on a challenge laid before him to their appointment by order dated 3.4.2008 after enquiry was satisfied that the procedure for selection was not in accordance with the rules. The proceedings as recorded were incomplete. The proceeding register was not signed by the Chairman and Secretary. The appointment letter of those selected was not jointly signed by the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Sewak. The Mukhiya and the Up-Mukhiya have acknowledged that due to the commotion created during the selection process the same could not be completed in accordance with law. The private respondents were also heard. Satisfied of the irregularities, he ordered the cancellation of the appointment of the private respondents and directed fresh selection to be done in accordance with law. The private respondents came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 8415 of 2009. Pursuant to the directions of the 3 Court the Commissioner of the Division disposed their appeal by a non-speaking cryptic order leading to remand when the present order dated 12.9.2009 has been passed. The Commissioner was satisfied that the order of the District Magistrate to hold fresh selection did not require interference and gave certain directions to be complied before the process was to be started. However, in the meantime, he has directed that the private respondents shall continue to work. This Court finds it difficult to appreciate the nature of the order of the Commissioner. Either the private respondents were validly appointed or invalidly appointed. If they were invalidly appointed and the Commissioner was satisfied of the justification to make fresh appointments, the question of allowing illegally appointed persons to continue simply does not arise. If their appointments were valid, the question of the Commissioner directing fresh selection does not arise. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned, including the private respondents when he shall also be required to adequately and fully discuss his own order and reasoning dated 12.9.2009 to facilitate judicial review of his order, should the need arise. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)