IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2345 of 2009 RUBI KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI UPENDRA MOHAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HURKA, P.O. HURKA, P.S. TILAITHU, DISTRICT ROHTAS (SASARAM) ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S., GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE-CUM-COLLECTOR, ROHTAS (SASARAM) 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, ROHTAS (SASARAM) 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, TILAITHU, ROHTAS (SASARAM). For the petitioner :- Mr. Birju Prasad, Advocate For the State :- S.C. 10 ----------- 3 14.5.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. The petitioner was selected as an Anganbari Sevika in a general meeting dated 12.6.2007. The selection of the petitioner was approved and she was given a training to work as an Anganbari Sevika. She joined the post on 27.6.2007 and returned after completing her training and was discharging her duty satisfactorily. By order dated 20.11.2008, the District Programme Officer cancelled the selection of the petitioner and terminated her on the ground that her father was working as a IVth grade employee in the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the village and her father-in-law/brother-in-law and other family members are not in government service. As far as her - 2 - father is concerned, it is submitted that the father resides in a different village altogether. Counsel for the petitioner further refers to annexure- 6, letter no. 493 dated 29.5.2007 issued by the District Programme Officer, Rohtas (Sasaram) to the Child Development Project Officer, Tilaithu clarifying the Clause 3 (Anga) of 2007 guidelines. Whatever be the allegations, it is quite clear from Clause 10 of the guidelines of 2007 that it is the District Magistrate who has been given the power to interfere and pass orders with respect to the selection of an Anganbari Sevika. This aspect of the matter has also been decided and set at rest by an order of this Court issued in L.P.A. No. 863 of 2009 disposed of on 16.2.2010. The District Magistrate may pass any appropriate order after perusal of the order passed in the L.P.A. referred to aforesaid with respect to selection of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, the order contained in annexure-6 terminating the service of the petitioner Rubi Kumari is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)