IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9404 of 2010 ====================================================== Rubi Kumari .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Gupta Mr. Harish Chandra Patel For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag5) ====================================================== 3 20-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and Respondent No.9. The controversy relates to appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika in the Lanka Tola Badira Tola Centre between the petitioner and Respondent No.9. The petitioner is stated to have been selected. Aggrieved, Respondent No.9 represented before the authorities. An enquiry was directed leading to an order by the District Programme Officer on 16.6.2009 holding Respondent No.9 ineligible for appointment. Respondent No.9 carried the matter thereafter to the Lokayukta who is stated to have enquired into the matter leading to a fresh order dated 22.1.2010 by the same District Programme Officer terminating the appointment of the petitioner in pursuance of the orders of the Lokayukta and the enquiry report of the District Panchayat Raj Officer. The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the District Patna High Court CWJC No.9404 of 2010 (3) dt.20-10-2011 2 Magistrate who on 14.5.2010 dismissed the same holding that in view of the directions of the Lokayukta he had no option in the matter. In 2010 (2) P.L.J.R. 374 delivered on 16.2.2010, the District Magistrate alone has been held to be competent to decide issues of eligibility for appointment of Angan Bari Sevika as distinct from the powers of the District Programme Officer to deal with delinquent Angan Bari Sevikas. The impugned order for termination having been issued prior to that date shall therefore be governed by the law as it was understood vesting powers in the District Programme Officer and appeal against which lay before the District Magistrate. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if after enquiry the candidature of Respondent No.9 stood rejected by order dated 16.6.2009, then until and unless that order is not upset, set aside, modified or varied by any superior authority no repeat enquiry at the behest of Respondent No.9 is permissible ignoring the earlier findings. Furthermore, the petitioner was not heard before the order dated 22.1.2010. The District Magistrate has not passed a reasoned order, but has simply opined that he lacks jurisdiction in view of the directions of the Lokayukta which amounts to abdication of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the State submitted from the recitals in order dated 22.1.2010 that the petitioner may Patna High Court CWJC No.9404 of 2010 (3) dt.20-10-2011 3 have been heard. Unfortunately, the counter affidavit which could have helped in the matter is silent on this aspect. A separate counter affidavit has been filed by private Respondent No.9 which also does not help on this aspect at all. If matters have proceeded on any hearing done by the Lokayukta after the order dated 16.6.2009, it becomes very relevant whether the petitioner was heard before the Lokayukta or not. If the petitioner has been heard before the Lokayukta keeping in mind that the appointment relates to the services of an agent and not in government service, there may be a deemed overruling of the order dated 16.6.2009 if it finds discussion in the order of the Lokayukta after hearing the petitioner. Unfortunately, the petitioner, the State and private Respondent No.9 have not been able to throw any light on this aspect before this Court in their respective affidavits. Keeping in mind that the controversy relates to appointment of an agent by the principal but that principals of fair play and reasonableness have to be kept in mind as the principal happens to be the State Government, the application is disposed with the following directions:- The order dated 14.5.2010 passed by the District Magistrate is formally set aside. It does not result in revival of any status quo ante or restoration of appointment of the petitioner. Patna High Court CWJC No.9404 of 2010 (3) dt.20-10-2011 4 The District Magistrate will hear the parties afresh. The District Magistrate will examine if the order dated 16.6.2009 has been upset, varied, modified or reversed by any authority. The District Magistrate will next examine if the order dated 16.6.2009 forms part of the discussions of the Lokayukta. The District Magistrate will next examine if the petitioner was heard by the Lokayukta or not. If the District Magistrate is satisfied that the petitioner was heard before the Lokayukta and the order dated 16.6.2009 has been adequately dealt with by the Lokayukta there may be no occasion for the District Magistrate to interfere with the order dated 22.1.2010. If the petitioner has not been heard by the Lokayukta and also not been heard before the order dated 22.1.2010 has been passed and the order dated 14.5.2010 is non-speaking in nature then quite naturally the impugned orders dated 22.1.2010 and 14.5.2010 shall not be sustainable and the matter shall have to be heard afresh by the District Magistrate based on independent application of mind. Let such consideration be done and a reasoned and speaking order displaying full application of mind to all aspects as discussed in the present order be then passed by the District Magistrate within a maximum period of three Patna High Court CWJC No.9404 of 2010 (3) dt.20-10-2011 5 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)