IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2489 of 2009 Babita Devi . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 5/ 08/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of respondent No.8 despite valid service of notice on two occasions. It transpires from the order dated 19.12.2008 of the District Project Officer, Patna that respondent No.8 was permitted to work as an Angan Bari Sevika despite her termination on 21.2.2008 by the District Magistrarte. The first registered notice issued to her was on 5.3.2009 which has been returned with the postal endorsement as ‘not traceable’. It cannot be lost sight of that she was discharging duties as an Angan Bari Sevika at Dhanarua. Therefore, it was a clear case of evading to receive notice. If that were not enough, the notice issued on second occasion by ordinary process has been duly served upon her. Respondent No.8 has therefore full knowledge of the present proceedings and has taken the risk herself by choosing not to appear before the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the Aam Sabha on 28.2.2007 the petitioner was found best suited for appointment having highest 2 marks. Appointment was arbitrarily given to respondent No.8. The District Magistrate by his order dated 21.2.2008 directed the termination of respondent No.8 and fresh selection. Respondent No.8 questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No.5857/08 disposed on 26.4.2011 granting her the liberty to approach the Commissioner of the Division in appeal against the aforesaid order. In the meantime, the District Project Officer contrary to her order of termination, on 19.12.2008 permitted respondent No.8 to continue working. This was not brought to the attention of the Court by respondent No.8 when C.W.J.C. No.5857/08 was disposed. She is not appearing in the present proceedings also. The submission therefore is that by resort to a subterfuge the respondent No.8 seeks to take advantage of the benefit of the order dated 19.12.2008 preventing adjudication as there is no occasion for her to prefer any appeal if she was already working without any limitations in the order dated 19.12.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that fresh selection process was required to be held in terms of the directions of the District Magistrate dated 21.2.2008 which has attained finality. Only to maintain consistency in the orders of the Court, following the order in C.W.J.C. No.5857/08 3 liberty is granted to the petitioner to represent before the Commissioner along with a copy of the present order as also that of C.W.J.C. No.5857/08 In the event that respondent No.8 has not preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, the Commissioner by virtue of the representation to be filed by the petitioner is directed to treat it as a suo motu appeal/revision, notice the parties and then proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the petitioner seeks any interim directions from the Commissioner pending disposal of the appeal in context of the order dated 19.12.2008 the Commissioner is obliged to decide the same in accordance with law within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of such application for interim relief. The application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)