IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15585 of 2009 1. HIRA KUMARI W/O DINESH CHAUPAL @ DINESH SHARMA R/O VILL+P.O+P.S-SAUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSHA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTT- SAHARSA 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SAUR BAZAAR, DISTT- SAHARSHA 6. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT SAUR BAZAR, P.O+P.S- SAUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT SAUR BAZAR, P.O+P.S- SAUR BAZAR, DISTT- SAHARSA ----------- 2. 14.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Anganwari Sewika in the Mallik Sharma Tola. She was selected on 23.3.2007 and sent for training whereafter a formal letter of appointment was issued on 7.9.2007. She joined duties. A controversy then cropped up that her husband was in semi government servant having been appointed as Panchayat Teacher and therefore she was not eligible for appointment under Clause 3(e) of the guidelines regulating the appointment. After hearing her, the District Magistrate set aside her appointment on that ground. She went in appeal before the Commissioner who rejected the same on 12.9.2009. It is not in controversy between the counsel for the 2 parties that the husband of the petitioner was empanelled to be considered for appointment as a Panchayat Teacher on 8.3.2007. He gave his consent for the same on 11.3.2007. He came to be appointed as such on 26.3.2007. The petitioner came to be appointed as an Anganwari Sewika on 23.3.2007. The law stands settled that mere empanelment creates no right to appointment till the actual appointment is not made. The selection remains inconclusive and the employer retains the discretion not to make an appointment even after empanelment for justifiable reasons. In view of the fact that the husband of the petitioner prima facie appears to have been given appointment after the selection of the petitioner, this Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned orders dated 28.6.2008 and 12.9.2009 in their present form. In so far as the second ground of alleged procedural irregularities are concerned, when the Mukhiya alone is stated to have signed the proceedings, this does not appear to be the subject matter of consideration in the original impugned order of the District Magistrate dated 28.6.2008. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the appellate authority to pass fresh, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law in light of the aforesaid discussions, to facilitate judicial review, if 3 the need arises. Let the same be done within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Any appointment made on the vacancy created consequent to the termination of the petitioner for its continuance shall naturally depend on the fresh order to be passed by the authority. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)