IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9884 of 2011 1. Renu Sinha WIFE OF SANJAY KUMAR RESIDENT OF WOLAKPUR, P.S. HULASGANJ, DISTRICT JEHANABAD. 2. MAMTA KUMARI WIFE OF SANTOSH KUMAR RESIDENT OF SULTANPUR, P.S. HULASGANJ, DISTRICT JEHANABAD. 3. PARVATI DEVI WIFE OF PARSHURAM SHARMA RESIDENT OF MOKIMPUR, P.S. HULASGANJ, DISTRICT JEHANABAD. 4. RANJANA KUMARI WIFE OF ANIL KUMAR RESIDENT OF WOLAKPUR, P.S. HULASGANJ, DISTRICT JEHANABAD. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JEHANABAD. 3. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, JEHANABAD. 4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, HULASGANJ, JEHANABAD. 5. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, JEHANABAD. ---------------------------------- 2 06/09/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. Annexure-6 is the order dated 12.02.2011 passed by the District Magistrate, Jehanabad. By virtue of this order appointment or selection made under the aegis of one Raj Kishore Sharma between 11.03.2003 and 13.03.2003 for various Angan Bari Centres of which these petitioners came to be appointed as Sevika or Sahayika has been held to be bad and direction has been issued for a fresh exercise. - 2 - Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of the District Magistrate, Jehanabad is erroneous in light of the fact that in terms of 1998 guidelines issued by the State government, even if it is argued that the Mukhia of the Panchayat had participated in the selection process, he had participated only as a Member. If his participation is ignored then it makes no difference to the final selection which was any way made by the Child Development Project Officer who was the Chairman of the Committee. Mere participation of the Mukhia does not vitiate the proceeding. The Court has gone through the detailed order passed by the District Magistrate. He has dealt with the background under which such appointment came to be made. The history is that the election of Raj Kishore Sharma as Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat became a subject matter of challenge in an election petition. His election was held to be bad which was upheld by the High Court as well. The order of the High Court was passed on 04.12.2002. There was no further appeal against that order. In other words Raj Kishore Sharma - 3 - had no locus standi whatsoever to represent or claim himself to be the Mukhia of the Panchayat in question. But despite such a declaration having been made by the Courts of competent jurisdiction in an abrasive fashion he presided over certain meetings conducted between 11.03.2003 to 13.03.2003 relating to the Panchayat and selections came to be made. The Child Development Project Officer pointed these facts out before the superior authority which led to various rounds of litigation. Next submission of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that since the corum, as per annexure-1, which is the guidelines, is only of three persons and even if the Mukhia is ousted from the meetings, the corum would still stand. There is inherent flaw in such a legal submission because what is vitiated by the participation of persona non grata vitiates the entire proceeding as such and, therefore, the question of corum will not decide the sanctity or validity of such selection. It is a case of naked exercise of authority which does not exist or was vested in the said Raj Kishore Sharma after his ouster by judicial pronouncement made by the High Court. If such - 4 - selection was made as above, then all such selections have to be given a go bye and the District Magistrate has done no wrong in cancelling all such selections and directing a fresh exercise. This writ application has no merit and requires no interference by this Court. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)