IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.401 of 2010 Kumari Divya Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi, AC to AAG III For Respondent No.10: Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate ------- 4. 14.07.2011 The Commissioner, Tirhut Division, is present in person and assures the Court that in future he shall be more careful with regard to proceedings pending before this Court and shall ensure proper assistance in timely dispensation of justice by furnishing instruction in time so that counter affidavit is filed in time. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for Respondent no. 10. Respondent No. 10 was appointed as Anganwari Sevika. On grounds of alleged dereliction in duty she was terminated by the Director, ICDS. After her termination the petitioner came to be appointed. Respondent no. 10 questioned her termination in Appeal before the Commissioner. The Commissioner returned a finding that the termination of Respondent No. 10 was contrary to law as it violated basic tenets of natural justice, as no show cause notice was issued to her. Counsel for the petitioner urged that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against the Director of ICDS. If the termination had been ordered by the District Magistrate the issues may have been different. He next urged that the petitioner was not heard by the Commissioner even though she was going to be directly affected by the appellate order in pursuance of her subsequent appointment. It was lastly urged that instructions had been issued by the Director, ICDS that where an Anganwari Sevika was found to be negligent in discharge of her duty, her services could be terminated without a show cause notice. The aspect of Anganwari Sevika not being a government servant but merely an agent of the Government, not entitled to similar status and protection as available to government servants, stands well considered by this Court. A Division Bench in 2004 (2) PLJR 833, has held that nonetheless the rudimentary principle of natural justice shall apply before termination of the agency of Anganwari Sevika. If there were allegations, the person concerned had to be given an opportunity to deny or meet the allegations. In absence of this procedure having been followed the termination was unsustainable. That answers the contention that the termination without a show cause notice was justified in view of direction of the Director ICDS. In view of that finding of fact, the question that the Commissioner may have had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal or that the petitioner was not heard, looses its relevance in view of the admitted position that the very termination of Respondent no. 10 was unsustainable in law. To interfere with the order of the Commissioner shall result in revival of an illegal termination of Respondent no. 10. The Court shall not pass such an order. This Court in exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution shall not interfere with an order merely because it may be proper to do so. The Court is required to take a holistic view of the entire controversy and then pass orders which it considers appropriate. The Court finds no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)