IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17560 of 2008 Kumari Veena Bharti, wife of Vinay Kumar, village Ambakua, Ps Nimchack Bathani, Dist. Gaya – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The state of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Director, ICDS, Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 4) The Divisional Commissioner, Gaya. 5) The Dist. Magistrate, Gaya. 6) The Dist. Programme Officer, Gaya. 7) The C.D.P.O., Nimchack Bathani, Dist. Gaya. 8) Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat raj, Mai, Block Nimchack, Dist. Gaya. 9) The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Mai, Block Nimchack, Dist. Gaya – Respondents. 3 18.5.2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 17.10.2008 passed by the District Programme Officer, Gaya by which the petitioner’s engagement as Aanganbari Sevika has been terminated on the ground that her father is working as a teacher in a Government school. The order of termination has been passed in terms of rule 3(Anga). Rule 3 (Anga) has been interpreted by this court in the case of Sunita Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and others, 2010 (3) PLJR 68. I accordingly quash the order, dated 17.10.2008 passed by the District Programme Officer and direct that he should consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the aforesaid judgment. In case any other incumbent has been appointed as Aanganbari Sevika in place of the petitioner, it would be essential to give notice to the said appointee before passing any order. The District Programme Officer is directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner within four months after valid 2 service of notice. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated aforesaid. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)