IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2275 of 2008 NEELU DEVI, W/O RAMANAND SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- SIMALGACHHI, P.S.-PURNEA (EAST), DISTRICT- PURNEA. ..........PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (I.C.D.S.) SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PANT BHAWAN, PATNA. 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, PURNEA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PURNEA. 5. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, PATNA. 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, PURNEA (EAST), PURNEA. 7. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT-RAJIGANJ, BLOCK PURNEA (EAST) DISTRICT-PURNEA. 8. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT- RAJIGANJ, BLOCK PURNEA (EAST) DISTRICT- PURNEA. 9. SANGEETA DEVI, W/O MANOJ SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-SIMALGACHHI, BLOCK-PURNEA (EAST), DISTRICT-PURNEA. .........RESPONDENTS. ----------- 3 22.04.2011 I.A. No.2818 of 2011 This I.A. has been filed for amendment in the prayer made in the writ application with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Collector dated 10.07.2007, as contained in Annexure-6, by which the selection of the petitioner for Anganwari Sevika has been held as illegal. The I.A. is allowed. Petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the same. The order shows that the petitioner’s selection has been held illegal on the ground that along with her application the 2 resignation letters of her husband and herself from the post of Ward Member and Panchayat Member respectively had not been attached which appeared to be inserted with the application later on. But the order also shows that in this respect petitioner was not heard and probably she was never noticed before the Collector passed the said impugned order. Therefore, it prima facie appears that the impugned order of the Collector is in violation of Principles of Natural Justice. However, the petitioner has already represented before the Commissioner who is the Appellate Authority under the Guidelines to hear appeal against the order passed by the Collector cancelling the engagement of an Anganwari Sevika or Sahayika on the ground of illegality in selection process or on the ground of illegal appointment. Therefore, instead of setting aside the impugned order of the Collector, this Court directs the respondent Commissioner to treat the representation of the petitioner as an appeal against the order of the Collector, issue notice to the parties, giving them opportunity to be heard and decide the same 3 in accordance with law preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Petitioner is granted liberty to file a fresh memo of appeal in continuation of her representation taking appropriate grounds as she may deem fit and proper to challenge the order of the Collector. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)