IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7065 of 2010 1. Dhanmuni Devi W/O Ashok Ram R/O Village & P.O.- Jigna, P.S.- Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary Department Of Social Welfare, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director Integrated Child Development Scheme, Director Of Icds Under Department Of Social Welfare, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate Rohtas At Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas 5. District Programme Officer, Rohtas At Sasaram 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer Rohtas At Sasaram 7. The Child Development Project Officer Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas At Sasaram 8. The Block Development Officer Block-Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas 9. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat- Jamraur Block- Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas At Sasaram 10. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat- Jamraur, Block- Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas At Sasaram 11. The Panchayat Sevak, Gram Panchayat-Jamraur Block- Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas At Sasaram 12. Asha Devi W/O Munna Ram R/O Vill.- Jigna, P.S.- Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Adv. For the Respondent no. 12 :- Mr. Ranvijay Narain Singh, Adv. Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Adv. ---------- 3. 22.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and for respondent no. 12. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2009 unseating her from the post of Anganwari Sewika on account of irregularities in the selection process and directing fresh selection. The challenge is also to the subsequent communication dated 1.12.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner 2 submits that the notice for selection was duly circulated in the village from 5.6.2008 to 15.6.2008. He relies on an extract of the notice from the register stated to have been signed by approximately 60 villagers. It is next submitted that the impugned order is ex parte in nature. The petitioner has already joined in pursuance of the selection and working. Had she been noticed and given an opportunity for defence she could have demonstrated that the notice was duly published before selection as no other illegality in the selection or her ineligibility has been alleged. Reliance is also placed on an order of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2255 of 2010 that removal of an Anganwari Sewika in violation of principles of natural justice was unsustainable without furthermore. It is next submitted that a Division Bench of this Court on 16.2.2010 held that issues with regard to appointment of an Anganwari Sewika as distinct from dereliction in discharge of duties are the exclusive domain of the District Magistrate. Therefore the District Programme Officer had no jurisdiction to terminate the petitioner. Counsel for the respondents have 3 supported the impugned orders. This Court in more than one case has held that the judgment of the Division Bench in 2010 (2) PLJR 374 (Prabha Kumari Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) was delivered on 16.2.2010. It has to be understood as operative prospectively in absence of any directions contained to give effect to it retrospectively. If what the petitioner contends be correct, there shall be no limit to reopening of selections and appointment and/or terminations which attained finality much before 16.2.2010 creating absolute turmoil. No order of a Court of law can be interpreted in such manner. The petitioner was terminated on 24.11.2009 before the order of the Division Bench. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that if the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice it is a nullity. But it is equally settled law that if interference with an order shall result in the revival of another illegal order, the Court may decline interference. It must be kept in mind that the respondents have only directed a fresh selection when all including the petitioner and private respondent have to be 4 considered again. Such interpretation of the law must be avoided as held in (1999) 8 SCC 16 (Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo Vs. State of Bihar) held at Pargraph-38 as follows:- “38. For what has been stated above we hold that the order of the learned Member of Board of Revenue directing action to be taken for refund of the excess compensation was valid and proper though he has no jurisdiction to pass the order. In the event it is set aside it would amount to reviving an invalid order of payment of excess compensation to the appellant.” The petitioner contends in her pleadings at Paragraph-6 that a general notice was circulated in the village. The guidelines under Clause 6(iii) provide that the District Magistrate is required to publish an advertisement in the newspaper. The notice for the Aam Sabha is required to be published in the Gram Panchayat Office, the proposed Anganwari Centre, the Project Office, the Block Office and additionally is required to be published by the beat of drum/loudspeaker in the area concerned. There is no pleading on behalf of the petitioner that these procedures were followed. The Court therefore finds it difficult to interfere with the impugned order. 5 The Court therefore does not consider it necessary to go into the allegations of alleged ineligibility of respondent no. 12 as the issue is premature. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)