IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6877 of 2011 Kalyani Bishwas W/o Sandeep Kumar R/o Village- Puraina, PO- Puraina PS- Yogapatti, Distt- West Champaran, selected as Sevika at Aanganbadi Kendra-158 under Gram Panchayat Raj, Bagahi Block- yogapatti PS Yogapatti, Distt- West Champaran---------------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Tirhut Division Muzaffarpur 3. The District Magistrate. West Champaran at Bettiah 4. The District Welfare Officer-cum-The District Programme Officer West Champaran at Bettiah 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Yogapatti, Distt- West Champaran 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bagahi Puraina, Block Yogapatti, Distt- West Champaran------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------Respondents ---------------------------------- 2 5.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika in Kalyani Vishwas Centre No. 158 in the district of West Champaran was made in the circumstances that appointment of Poonam Devi was earlier interfered with by the Collector and a vacancy was caused due to such removal of Poonam Devi. Poonam Devi went in appeal before the Divisional Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner after considering all the aspects restored the status of Poonam Devi and allowed her appeal with a direction that she will be reinstated to the post forthwith. Consequent thereto annexure-1 and 1/1 have been issued by CDPO restraining the petitioner from functioning in the said centre which led to filing of the present writ application challenging that order. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that her selection does not suffer from any infirmity of the procedure so 2 adopted and now that she was selected she cannot be removed. But there is difficulty in accepting such a contention made on behalf of the petitioner because the appointment of the petitioner was contingent to the removal of said Poonam Devi by earlier adjudication made at the level of the District Magistrate. If her appeal was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner and she was ordered to be reinstated it cannot be said that Poonam Devi cannot go back to the post because the petitioner came to be appointed in the meanwhile. The appointment of the petitioner was a contingent appointment caused due to removal of Poonam Devi. If the original appointee was restored back to her position then the petitioner will have to make way for her as she never acquired right for continuance for all times, unless any infirmity as such is found with the order of the Divisional Commissioner, which has not been established. Order of the CDPO restraining the petitioner from working cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable because a quasi judicial order has to be honoured and the decision implemented unless interfered with. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS/rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)