IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.862 of 2010 1. PUNAM KUMARI W/O LATE RAMADHAR SHARMA R/O VILL.- KUSMAIN, P.S. GOH, DISTT.- AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GAYA 3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, AURANGABAD 4. ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR-CUM-SENIOR INCHARGE OFFICER, DISTRICT PUBLIC GRIEVANCE BUREAU, AURANGABAD 5. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER, GOH, AURANGABAD ----------- 3. 02.08.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sevika. Her services then came to be terminated by the District Programme Officer after hearing her on 6.12.2008 in preference to one Smt. Reeta Kumari, wife of Narendra Razak. The matter came to be reconsidered by the authorities when the Child Development Project Officer by his letter dated 18.06.2009 addressed to the District Magistrate upheld the appointment of the petitioner. This was reiterated by a letter of the same date addressed to the Additional Collector. The District Magistrate vide Annexure 7 has given direction for fresh selection. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the District Programme Officer was not competent to decide the issues of eligibility for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika. This was the excusive jurisdiction of the District Magistrate as per the Division Bench decision reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 374 (Prabha Kumari Devi Vs The State of Bihar & ors.) and the District Programme Officer was competent to decide the matter with regard to deficiency in discharge of duties by the Anganwari Sevika alone. 2 That there was some confusion earlier prior to the judgement of Division Bench was delivered on 16.2.2010 in context of certain government circular is more than apparent from the order of her termination dated 31.12.2008. In fact, the litigant, the authorities and this Court in several matters proceeded on the premise that the District Programme Officer was competent to examine such matters. The judgement of the Division Bench has not been directed to be retrospective and shall there not reopen closed and decided matters. This Court therefore finds it difficult to interfere with the order dated 31.12.2008 for reasons of the Division Bench enunciation of the law on 16.2.2010. The District Magistrate shall therefore be deemed to be the appellate authority to assess the order dated 31.12.2008. If the petitioner files such an appeal before the District Magistrate within a period of three weeks from today the District Magistrate is directed to decide the same on merits without going into the issues of limitation and dispose off the same by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned including aforesaid Smt. Reeta Kumari if her interest are to be prejudicially affected. It shall be open for the petitioner in the proposed appeal to seek interim relief also in light of the order dated 18.6.2009 of the Child Development Project Officer addressed to the District Magistrate, the Additional Collector and any other document that the petitioner may seek to rely upon to claim interim relief so that her appeal may not become infructuous. It is expected that any such application for interim relief shall be disposed off 3 within a maximum period of one week from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a such application, and the appeal itself be disposed within a maximum period of three months from the date of presentation of such appeal along with a copy of the present order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)