IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2772 of 2010 1. SUNITA KUMARI W/O JITENDRA CHOUDHARY R/O KHESARI TOLA GANDHI NAGAR, P.O.- PATHAR KATTI, P.S. NIMCHAK BATHANI PRAKHAND NIMCHAK BATHANI, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE GAYA 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER GAYA 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMMING OFFICER GAYA 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER NIMCHAK BATHANI, GAYA 6. THE MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT MANIARA NIMACHAK BATHANI, PRAKHAND, GAYA 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT MANIARA, NIMCHAK BATHANI PRAKHAND, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- 2/ 26/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the State yesterday i.e. 25.8.2010 which is not available on record. The Court therefore requested the learned counsel for the State to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceedings on that ground. Let the office place the same on record. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that one Kiran Devi was appointed as an Angan Bari Sevika, questioned by the petitioner. The appointment of the former was set aside and the petitioner recommended for appointment. She was then appointed on 5.1.2009, but was not sent for training. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. There is no dispute on facts. - 2 - The counter affidavit then defends the cancellation on grounds of certain alleged illegalities on an order passed by the District Programme Officer on 4.5.2010. A Division Bench of this Court in 2010(2) P.L.J.R. 374 (Prabha Kumari Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) by a judgement delivered on 16.2.2010 has held that where issues of appointment are concerned, on an interpretation of the circulars that it is the District Magistrate alone who is competent to decide issues. It is only in case of deficiency in discharge of duties that the District Programme Officer was competent to do so. If the petitioner has been issued an appointment letter it cannot be terminated by the competent authority without issuing her a show cause notice first and a liberty to meet the allegations. That also does not appear to have been done from the statements made in the counter affidavit. The order of the District Programme Officer terminating the appointment of the petitioner dated 4.5.2010 is accordingly set aside, but without prejudice to the rights of the respondents in light of the present discussion. The writ application is allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)