IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.485 of 2010 TETARA DEVI W/O BIMAL PASWAN R/O VILL SAJJAN DIHARA, P.O.AKHATIYARPUR, P.S.KARAGAHAR, DISTT-ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR , INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER ROHTAS 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER KARAGAHAR,ROHTAS 6. THE MUKHIYA THORASAN GRAM PANCHAYAT, KARAGAHAR, DISTT-ROHTAS ----------- 2 23.06.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for the State. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing the part of order dated 09.12.2009, contained in Memo No. 717, passed by the District Programme Officer, Rohtas, directing the C.D.P.O. Kargahar, to start fresh selection process to select Anganbari Sevika for Sajjan Dihara Centre. Petitioner’s case is that the selection of Neelam Devi as Anganbari Sevika was earlier made in violation of Clause 7 of the guidelines for selection of Anganbari Sevika. Clause 7 of the guidelines provides the procedure to be followed in selection of Anganbari Sevika/Sahaika. In the matters of selection, as per the guidelines, first priority is to be given to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes then most backward category candidate, then backward category candidate and last priority to the candidate belonging to general category. Since, petitioner belongs to scheduled castes category, as such, 1st priority should have given to her, but ignoring her candidature, Neelam Devi belonging to most - 2 - backward category was selected. The selection was challenged by the petitioner by filing an application before the Collector and the Collector directed the District Programme Officer, Sasaram, to pass necessary orders. Petitioner’s grievance is that as provided under clause 8(iii) of the guidelines, in the matters of selection and termination of Anganbari Sevika, jurisdiction is vested in the Collector and he can only pass any order. The District Magistrate could have directed the District Programme Officer, Sasaram, to conduct an enquiry in this regard, but so far final order is concerned, it could have been passed only by the District Magistrate, giving opportunity of hearing to all interested parties. Since, under the guidelines, this jurisdiction has been delegated to District Magistrate, it could not have been re-delegated by him to District Programme Officer. The order passed by District Programme Officer, is thus completely illegal and without jurisdiction. Application filed by the petitioner should have been considered and decided only by the District Magistrate, as such impugned order is fit to be quashed. Considering the provision under the guidelines, the impugned order dated 09.12.2009 passed by District Programme Officer, Rohtas, is quashed. This matter is remanded to the District Magistrate, Rohtas, to dispose of application filed by the petitioner, as provided under Clause 8(iii) of the guidelines, within one month from the date of - 3 - production/communication of the order. This application is allowed. Sanjeet/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)