IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9286 of 2010 Gudiya Kumari, W/o Vinay Kumar Singh, Resident of Village Udandih, Police Station Piro, District Bhojpur, Ara……………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar at Patna. 3. The Director, Directorate of I.C.D.S. Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, District Bhojpur. 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Piro, District Bhojpur, Ara. 6. The Block Development Officer, Piro District Bhojpur. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Piro, District Bhojpur, Ara. 8. The District Programme Officer, Bhojpur, Ara……………………………………………………………..Respondents ----------- 2 15.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Director, I.C.D.S., Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar dated 28.04.2008, as contained in Annexure-2, by which, on the basis of some enquiry and allegation of lapses in performance of her duty, her engagement as Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the Guidelines, Director, I.C.D.S. has no power to cancel 2 engagement of an Anganwari Sevika. He also submits that the said order has been passed in violation of Principles of Natural Justice as, before the order was passed, petitioner was never asked to show cause in the light of the enquiry report submitted against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed representations before the Director, as well as before the Minister of the Social Welfare Department and the matter was enquired into by the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O. for short), Piro, Bhojpur who reported, vide Annexure-4, that there was no lapses on the part of the petitioner in running the Centre. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of such report submitted by the C.D.P.O. in her favour, respondents have not taken any final decision. In the meanwhile, District Programme Officer, vide his letter dated 16.02.2010, as contained in Annexure-6, has directed for holding fresh selection 3 process for appointment of Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. The Director, I.C.D.S. does not have power under the Guidelines to cancel engagement of an Anganwari Sevika / Sahaika. The order also does not show that the same was passed in compliance of the Principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, the said order is quashed. Since the matter is under enquiry and the C.D.P.O. has already submitted a report to the District Programme Officer, Bhojpur, who now holds the power under the Guidelines to decide the matter in respect of any lapses committed by an Anganwari Sevika and order for disengagement, this Court directs District Programme Officer, Bhojpur at Ara to take a final decision in the matter of the petitioner in accordance with law after hearing the parties preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without being 4 influenced by the order of Director. Pending consideration of the matter by the District Programme Officer, if no appointment has been made on the post of Anganwari Sevika for the Centre concerned, the same shall not be made. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)