IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6105 of 2009 Rani Kumari, Wife of Murari Mehta, Resident of Village, Post Office and Gram Panchayat-Murli Basantpur, Police Station Mangaon, Block-Kahra, District Saharsa. -------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, I.C.D.S. Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Shekhpura. 5. The District Welfare Officer, Saharsa. 6. The District Program Officer, I.C.D.s., Saharsa. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Saharsa. 8. The Block Development Officer, Kahra, District Saharsa. 9. The Child Development Project Officer Kahra, District Saharsa. 10. The Mukhiya Murli Basantpur Gram Panchayat, Block-Kahra, District Kahra, District Saharsa. ---------- Respondents ----------- 2 14.5.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has a two fold grievance against the order dated 19.2.2009 terminating services of the petitioner from her engagement as Sahayika, namely:- (i) The same has been passed by an incompetent authority i.e. District Program Officer, Saharsa whereas such power is vested only in the Collector of the district. 2 (ii) The grievance of Shobha Kumari, the complainant, in fact was not against the petitioner rather against one Renu Kumari and as such, the impugned order has been passed on non-est and non-existent materials. Counsel for the State on the other hand would submit that there were sufficient materials to show that the very selection of the petitioner made on the post of Sahayika was by way of ignoring the case of one Nilam Devi, a more meritorious candidate and in that context, he would refer to a letter of the Officer on Special Duty of the District Confidential Cell, Saharsa dated 6th March, 2008. He would also refer to certain observations and findings in the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 to contend that the appointment of the petitioner was not made in a prescribed manner. This Court for the time being will not go into the inter-se merit of the petitioner vis-à-vis Nilam Devi and/or Shobha Kumari because such order of termination of services 3 of the petitioner could have been passed only by the Collector of the district and not by any other authority. If any other authority had any reason to believe that any illegality was committed in the appointment of the petitioner, the same was to be brought to the notice of the Collector who in terms of the order of the State Government was vested with the power of terminating the services of Angan Bari Sevika/ Sahayika. The counsel for the petitioner in this context has also correctly invited the attention of the Court towards a representation dated 2.3.2009 addressed by the petitioner to the Collector of the district and has complained that no action on the same has been taken by the Collector till date which had necessitated in filing of this writ application. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner’s representation dated 2.3.2009 ought to have been considered by the Collector of the district because it is the office of the Collector which has the final say in the matter of termination of the services of Angan Bari Sevika/ Sahayika. 4 In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Collector of the Saharsa district to look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order on the representation already filed by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-7 to this writ application within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without being influenced by any findings or observations made in the impugned order dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-1). While doing so, the Collector will also be obliged to hear the petitioner as also the Renu Kumari and Nilam Devi. Since the petitioner is out of service for a period of last three months, this Court would expect the Collector of the district to dispose of such representation after hearing of the concerned parties and looking into the relevant records including certificates within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if till date, no appointment has been made on the post occupied by the petitioner, the same shall not 5 be filled up till the representation of the petitioner is disposed of by the Collector of the district. With the aforementioned observations/ direction, this application is finally disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)