IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10244 of 2010 1. Smt.Anjum Aara W/O Md. Faiaz R/O Vill Minapur, P.S.Narhat, Distt-Nawadah Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Welfare Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Department Of Welfare, Patna 3. Director , I.C.D.S. Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. Commissioner Magadh Division , Gaya 5. District Magistrate Nawadah 6. District Programme Officer Nawadah, Distt-Nawadah 7. Child Development Project Officer Narhat, Nawadah, Distt- Nawadah 8. Mukhiya Chota Sheikhpura Gram Panchayat Distt-Nawadah 9. Panchayat Secretary, Chhota Sheikhpura Gram Panchayat Distt-Nawadah 10. Shamsad Bano W/O Md. Umar Faruque R/O Vill Jhikarua Tola Minapur, P.S.Narhat, Distt-Nawadah ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Surendra Kr. Adv. Mr. Kamaluddin, Adv. Mr. Sudha Chandra, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Adv. -------------- 3. 03.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.12.2008 of the District Programme Officer as affirmed in Appeal by the District Magistrate on 28.6.2009. The Commissioner has declined jurisdiction to hear the matter further. The petitioner was selected and appointed as an Anganwari Sewika on 8.2.2008. It was questioned by respondent no. 10. The District Programme Officer held that respondent no. 10 had qualifications from the Madarsa Board equivalent to 2 Matric and for reason of her possessing higher marks belonging to the dominant beneficiary community she should have been appointed in lieu of the petitioner. The petitioner carried the matter in Appeal when the District Magistrate issued directions for fresh selection to be made in accordance with law. The petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10939 of 2009 which directed the Commissioner to decide the challenge to the orders of the aforesaid authorities. The Commissioner held that the appellant authority being the District Magistrate he had no jurisdiction in the matter. Earlier interpreting the guidelines for appointment, the District Programme Officer was enquiring into issues both with regard to the legality of the appointment and dereliction in duty by the Anganwari Sewika. Appeal against the same lay before the District Magistrate. On 16.2.2010 a Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 863 of 2009 held that matters related to appointments were sufficiently important to confine jurisdiction in the District Magistrate alone to examine the same. Appeal would therefore lie against such orders before the Commissioner. Matters for dereliction in discharge 3 of duties were left to the District Programme Officer appeal against which would lie before the District Magistrate. The order for termination of the petitioner by the District Programme Officer is dated 29.12.2008. The contention of the petitioner that consequent to the pronouncement of the Court in L.P.A. No. 863 of 2009, the order of the District Programme Officer setting aside the appointment of the petitioner automatically collapses as being without jurisdiction does not appeal to the Court. The order of the Division Bench, to the mind of this Court, shall have to be given prospective effect. If it were to be held otherwise it shall be creating complete turmoil on matters which may be attained finality inter se. Normally when a Court of law pronounces on an issue it clarifies the legal position only. Directions of the Division Bench have not been given retrospective effect. Keeping in mind the nature of the appointment as an Agent for a Principal only, but that the Principal happens to be the Government, it has been held in 2004(2) PLJR 833 that only the principles of natural justice shall be available to persons like the petitioner. It is not in controversy that the petitioner has been given due hearing right 4 from the stage of the District Programme Officer as also before the appellate authority. The order of the District Programme Officer is reasoned and takes the view of an equivalence of qualification when respondent no. 10, otherwise is stated to be fulfilling the other requirements. The order cannot be stated to be arbitrary in any form or manner. Merely because another view may be possible for this Court by examining issues of equivalence at a subsequent stage shall not be sufficient justification to interfere. It is for the Principal to decide whom it wants as an Agent and not for the Court to dictate and thrust on Agent upon an unwilling Principle. The standard of scrutiny applicable to Government service cannot apply presently. Truly speaking the Commissioner could not have declined to decide the issue unless and until the order of the Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10939 of 2009 was upset, varied or modified. The jurisdiction was vested on the Commissioner by the order of this Court. But keeping in mind the entirety of the issue, the Court is not persuaded to proceed any further on that aspect as it is otherwise satisfied that the order of the District Programme Officer and the District Magistrate calls for no interference. It may only be 5 noticed that C.W.J.C. No. 10939 of 2009 did not adjudicate the matter on merits with regard to the aforesaid two orders. A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 772 of 2011 has already held that the remedy for a claimant to the post of Anganwari Sewika in such cases appropriately lies in a civil suit, if so advised. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)