IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8538 of 2010 1. ANURADHA BHARTI W/O DEVENDRA KUMAR R/O VILL.- TANKUPPA TOLA PHERU BIGHA, P.O. TANKUPPA, P.S.- WAZIRGANJ, O.P.- TANKUPPA, DISTT.- GAYA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, PATNA 2. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, GAYA 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER FATEHPUR TANKUPPA, DISTT.- GAYA 6. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT TANKUPPA P.O. TANKUPPA, P.S. WAZIRGANJ, O.P. TANKUPPA, DISTT.- GAYA 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT TANKUPPA PRAKHAND TANKUPPA, P.S. WAZIRGANJ, O.P. TANKUPPA, DISTT.- GAYA 8. SABITA KUMARI @ SAVITA KUMARI W/O ASHOK SINGH R/O VILL.- TANKUPPA, P.O. TANKUPPA, P.S. WAZIRGANJ, O.P. TANKUPPA, DISTT.- GAYA ----------- 2 15.04.2011 In this writ application petitioner’s challenge is to an order of the District Programme Officer dated 06.03.2010, as contained in Annexure-10, by which the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika of the centre in question has been cancelled and the C.D.P.O. has been directed to hold the selection process afresh for appointment of Anganwari Sevika. Learned counsel for the respondent no.8 submits that pursuant to said order, respondent no.8 was selected and she is functioning as Anganwari Sevika. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the District Programme 2 Officer is wholly without jurisdiction as in terms of the Guidelines of 2010 any order in respect of legality or otherwise of appointment made on the basis of selection process can be passed by a Collector only and not a District Programme Officer which has already been held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prabha Kumari Devi [2010 (2) PLJR 374]. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute this legal position. However, it is submitted that earlier the respondents had moved this Court against the selection of the petitioner through CWJC No.15054 of 2009 and the same was disposed of by order dated 25.11.2009 by a Bench of this Court noticing that under the notification of the State Government dated 25.07.2008 the power of the District Magistrate had been delegated with the District Programme Officer in respect of any enquiry in the matter of selection of an Anganwari Sevika. In the circumstances, while disposing of the writ application it gave liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the District Programme Officer who was required to decide and dispose of the same by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned in accordance with law within a maximum period of three months. Learned counsel for the respondents submits 3 that, in view of the orders of this Court, the District Programme Officer has exercised the power and has passed the impugned order. Therefore, his order cannot be said to be wholly without jurisdiction as he was authorized by this Court to decide the matter after hearing the parties. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents is not wholly without substance. However, the dispute is with regard to a claim of the respondents in preference to the petitioner for appointment of Anganwari Sevika and her non-consideration in that respect. Therefore, it will be appropriate that the parties are directed to appear before the Collector within three weeks from today and upon their appearance the Collector will fix up a date, hold an enquiry and shall decide the issue between them as original authority without taking into account the order passed by the District Programme Officer. The final order of the Collector must be passed within three months from the date of appearance of the parties or within three months from the date fixed for their appearance. Learned counsel for the State submits that since the respondent no.8 is functioning as Anganwari 4 Sevika, in public interest, she should be allowed to function for a limited period. This Court considers it appropriate. In the circumstances, This Court directs that, if the respondent no.8 is functioning as on today, she will be allowed to function as Anganwari Sevika strictly for three months and three weeks from today. In case the final order of the Collector is not passed within three months and three weeks from today the respondent no.8 shall cease to be Anganwari Sevika of the centre till final decision of the Collector. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)