IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18672 of 2009 1. SMT. MONI KUMARI W/O SRI SANTOSH KUMAR SINHA @ SANTOSH SINHA R/O VILL- PARORIYA, PANCHAYAT- BINJU BIGHA, MESKAUR, P.S. SIRDALA, DISTT. NAWADAH – Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY MAIN SECRETARIAT, BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, ICDS DEPTT. OF WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH, GAYA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADAH 6. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER NAWADAH 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER MESKAUR, DISTT. NAWADAH 8. THE MUKHIYA BINJU BIGHA, MESKAUR, P.S. SIRDALA, DISTT. NAWADAH 9. NEELAM KUMARI @ NEELAM SINHA W/O RAVINDRA KUMAR SINHA R/O VILL- PARORIYA, P.S. SIRDALA, DISTT. NAWADAH – Respondents. ----------- 2 28.4.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was selected as Aangan Bari Sevika in village Paroriya, Panchayat Biju Bigha on 8.6.2007. Her selection was cancelled on 22.6.2009 on the ground that she is not the resident of village Paroriya. Second Aam Sabha was held and the petitioner was again selected on 15.9.2007 as Aangan Bari Sevika. A complaint was filed that the petitioner does not live in village Paroriya, rather, she lives with her husband in Gaya. The Child Development Project Officer had furnished a report in which he has stated that the petitioner visits Paroriya on and off and otherwise resides at Gaya. The District Magistrate heard the complaint. In the said complaint it was said that the petitioner refused to take notice. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. The petitioner has received a letter from the Commissioner of the Division stating therein that in compliance of letter of Social Welfare Department, Bihar, interpreting the guidelines, there is no provision for appeal. The guide lines of the year 2006 clearly mentions that an appeal would lie before the Commissioner of the Division if the 2 order either dismissing or allowing the complaint is passed by the District Magistrate. Consequently counsel for the State informs the court that the appeal has been registered and the Commissioner has tried to hear the matter on several dates. It is said that notice was issued on 16.3.2010. However, there is no affidavit to say that the notice was validly served. The next date fixed in the case is 13.5.2010. The petitioner may appear before the Commissioner of the Division on 13.5.2010 and agitate her grievances. In case the petitioner seeks time, the Commissioner may grant not more than one week’s time. The Commissioner will examine whether notices were validly served to the petitioner and for that purpose send for the records from the District Magistrate, Nawada. The records would indicate the notings of the process server’s note, regarding service of notice. Obviously the Commissioner will also examine the merits of the case. The complainant of this case and the Child Development Project Officer have also to be heard and as such, the Commissioner may order that the Child Development Project Officer and the complainant, if any, should also appear before him. The entire proceeding should be concluded within a period of two months from 13.5.2010. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)