IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7184 of 2010 1. MINTA KUMARI @ MINTA DEVI, W/O SRI KISHORE PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-NASRATPUR, P/S DHANARUA IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER, PATNA. 6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, PATNA. 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, DHANARUA, DISTRICT-PATNA. 8. THE MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ CHHATI, NASRATPUR (DHANARUA) IN THE DISTRICT OF PATNA. ----------- 2 28.01.2011 Petitioner, who was a candidate for appointment as Anganwari Sevika for Nasratpur Centre, Code No.63, is aggrieved by the order of the respondent District Programme Officer dated 2.2.2010, as contained in Annexure-6, to the extent that after cancelling the selection of one Rina Kumari he has directed for holding fresh selection process in terms of 2006 guidelines. As per the case of the petitioner, in the selection process, her name was 4th in the panel. First was the Rina Kumari who was appointed. Second was in Government service as A.N.M. and third was elected as Ward Councilor. Therefore, they were not eligible for consideration. Rina Kumari being the first in 2 the panel was appointed inspite of the objections with regard to genuineness of her academic certificates. However, after her appointment, further enquiries were made and her certificates were found to be forged. A report was accordingly submitted and appointment of Rina Kumari was cancelled by the District Programme Officer by his order contained in Annexure-6. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that, once the appointment of Rina Kumari was cancelled, and the second and third candidates were not eligible, in natural course, petitioner should have been directed to be appointed as she was at serial no.4. Instead of passing the said order, the District programme Officer has directed for holding the selection process afresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to another order of the respondent District Programme Officer, as contained in Annexure-5, from which it appears that a clarification was issued by him to the Child Development Project Officer as to what step has to be taken in case certificates of appointed incumbent was found to be wrong or illegal. In 3 this letter the District Programme Officer refers to a letter of the Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna, namely, letter no.1195 dated 24.5.2007 and clarifies that, in case the certificate of the appointed Sevika is found to be false, the case of the next incumbent in the panel has to be considered, for which only a formal meeting of the Aam Sabha is required to be called. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of this clarification issued by the respondent District Programme Officer himself, in reference to the said letter no. 1195 dated 24.5.2007, in the present case also, after cancelling the selection of the said Rina Kumari, orders should have been issued by the District Programme Officer for calling a formal meeting of the Aam Sabha and for placing the case of the next incumbent in the panel for consideration for appointment. He submits that there was no requirement of holding fresh selection process as the panel was already available with the respondents. He submits that the instructions contained in the said letter of the Director, I.C.D.S. dated 24.5.2007 should have been followed in the 4 present case also. When the matter was taken up yesterday, this Court requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to obtain information as to whether the said Rina Kumari, whose selection was cancelled by the impugned order, has moved this Court, or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has obtained written information from the office of this Court that the said Rina Kumari has not moved this Court till now against the said order of the District Programme Officer, as contained in Annexure-6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. It is stated in the counter affidavit that since the appointment of the Rina Kumari was found to be illegal on account of forged academic certificates her appointment was cancelled and the order was issued for holding fresh selection process. There is nothing in the counter affidavit to explain as to why when the District Programme Officer himself had clarified by Annexure-5 that in such situation the case of the next incumbent in the panel has to be considered by the Aam Sabha why in the case of the petitioner fresh selection process 5 has been ordered to be held. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the procedure as clarified by the District Programme Officer himself in Annexure-5, in reference to the letter of the Director, I.C.D.S. dated 24.5.2007, should have been followed in the case of the petitioner also. In the circumstances, that part of the letter of the District Programme Officer, as contained in Annexure-6, by which, he has directed fresh selection process to be held is quashed. The respondents are directed to arrange for fresh Aam Sabha meeting and place the matter of appointment of the Anganwari Sevika from the panel from which the said Rina Kumari was appointed for consideration and for appropriate decision. The writ application is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions. The written information received by learned counsel for the petitioner from the office of this Court shall be kept on record. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)