IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3520 of 2010 1. SUNITA SINHA W/O AHLAD SINGH R/O VILL- KHARUARA, P.S- HARNAUT, DISTT- NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR, WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. DEPUTY SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA 6. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, NALANDA AT BIHAR SHARIF 7. DISTRICT PROGRMME OFFICER, NALANDA 8. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, HARNAUT, DISTT- NALANDA ----------- 2/ 16/09/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have applied for appointment as Angan Bari Sevika in Kharuara village. On 25.6.1997 she was appointed in the Gosain Bigha in place of Kharuara centre. That was questioned by one Sudha Kumari who had applied for Gosain Bigha. The petitioner continued to discharge her duties when she came to be removed on 13.7.2002. She questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No.9443/02 which was dismissed on 28.8.2002 noticing her admission that she was not a resident of village- Gosain Bigha. The petitioner appears to have continued to pursue the matter even thereafter before the Lokayukta and the District Magistrate leading to fresh orders dated 27.11.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits - 2 - that the fresh order is in favour of the petitioner. It holds that she is a resident of village Kharuara and had applied for appointment as Angan Bari Sevika in that village itself, but wrongly she came to be appointed in village- Gosain Bigha. It then concludes that since the panel from which the petitioner had been appointed had a validity of one year, she could not be reinstated and has directed fresh appointment. Learned counsel for the State submits that the fresh order cancels the appointment of Sudha Kumari also and she has not been made a party respondent. It is not known whether she has questioned the order dated 27.11.2008 and with what consequences. He additionally submits that insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the issue stands concluded by C.W.J.C. No.9443/02 acknowledging her own lack of qualification for residence. This Court is satisfied from consideration of the recitals in the order dated 27.11.2008 that C.W.J.C. No.9443/02 does not come in the way of the petitioner in seeking relief. If she was an applicant for village Kharuara and the only ground of her ineligibility is that she was not a resident of village Gosain Bigha, the appointment was to be made by the respondents and they wrongly appointed her in a village for which she had not applied, she cannot be visited with the consequences. - 3 - The reasoning in the order dated 27.11.2008 not to reinstate the petitioner, but to direct fresh selection cannot be upheld. Once the order concludes that the petitioner has been wronged, for no fault of hers, restitution demands reinstatement. However, her reinstatement shall naturally remain dependent upon whether the order dated 27.11.2008 has been questioned by Sudha Kumari or not and whether it has attained finality or not. Subject to the aforesaid two conditions only, let the District Magistrate, Nalanda examine the issue of reinstatement/restitution of the petitioner in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. It is expected that before passing any final orders, the District Magistrate shall appropriately notice Sudha Kumari also and obtain her version of the finality attached to the order dated 27.11.2008. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)