IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8194 of 2010 NEETU KUMARI, W/O RAJESH KUMAR KUSHWAHA @ RAMBABU R/O VILLAGE- ASADPUR SATPURA, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. ………….. PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA-1. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 5. THE PANCHAYAT SACHIV, GRAM PANCHAYAT, HARIVANSHPUR, BANTHU,P.S & BLOCK- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI. 6. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT-HARIVANSHPUR BANTHU, P.S. & BLOCK BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. 7. NIRMALA DEVI, W/O RAJESH CHAUDHARY, R/O VILLAGE ASADPUR SATPURA,P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. 8. RITU DEVI, W/O SHRI MUKESH RAJAK, R/O VILLAGE ASADPUR SATPURA,P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR. ……….. RESPONDENTS ----------- 2. 01/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Collector dated 26.4.2008, as contained in Annexure-2, by which her engagement as Anganbari Sevika has been cancelled, and also the order of the Commissioner dated 21.12.2009, as contained in Annexure-3, by which her appeal has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises three issues, namely, (i) that the Collector has got the matter enquired into by the C.D.P.O. and on her report, has passed order. 2 He submits that under the Guidelines, on receipt of a complaint, the Collector was required to get an enquiry held either by the S.D.O. or the District Programme Officer and he cannot act upon the report of the C.D.P.O. Secondly, he has submitted that the order of cancellation of engagement of petitioner has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to her. Thirdly, he submits that the mapping register shows that there is majority of caste of the petitioner in the beneficiary area and therefore, her selection was correct. He submits that the Commissioner has also not taken into account these grounds and has merely rejected the appeal of the petitioner accepting the order of the Collector passed on the report of the C.D.P.O. as correct. So far as action of the Collector on the report of the C.D.P.O. is concerned, the Guidelines provides for calling for a report from the S.D.O. or the District Programme Officer in the light of any complaint received by him in respect of any irregularity committed in the selection. But this provision cannot be held as mandatory so as to hold the order of the Collector as vitiated in law on that count. 3 The order of the Collector shows that a report was called for from the S.D.O. However, the successor Collector passed order on the report of the C.D.P.O. itself. So far as denial of opportunity to the petitioner by the Collector is concerned, the same is correct. But the petitioner moved in appeal against the said order of the Collector where she was given full opportunity to be heard and take her stand. Since the order of the Commissioner was passed after giving full opportunity to the petitioner, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the matter. So far as third ground is concerned, from the order of the Commissioner it appears that all stand taken by the petitioner have been recorded in the order. The order shows that the petitioner had not taken this ground before the Commissioner that the mapping of the area was correct and the report of the C.D.P.O. in respect of leaving out one tola from the mapping was wrong on facts. In fact, from the stand of the petitioner recorded by the Commissioner, it appears that no challenge was made by the petitioner to the correctness of the report of the C.D.P.O. 4 In the circumstances, this Court finds that the order of the Commissioner is in accordance with law and after giving full opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the said order and thus does not find any merit in the writ application. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)