IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13638 of 2008 SHAKUNTALA DEVI, WIFE OF BIMAL KUMAR MISHRA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR UDAI, POLICE STATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE OF I.C.D.C., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA. 4. DIRECTOR, I.C.D.C. DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DARBHANGA. 6. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, BENIPUR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 7. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, DARBHANGA. 8. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ALINAGAR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 9. MUKHIYA, ADHLOYAM GRAMPANCHAYAT UNDER ALINAGAR BLOCK, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 10. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, ADHLOYAM GRAMPANCHAYAT, BLOCK ALINAGAR, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. 11. KAMINI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI HARENDRA KUMAR THAKUR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMPUR UDAI, POLICE STATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA. ----------- 2. 11.1.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner being aggrieved by her non-selection on the post of Aanganbari Sevika in preference to another claims to have moved before the District Programme Officer, who by his order dated 11.6.2008 initiated an enquiry calling for reports to enable him to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent State authorities affirmed by the Child Development Project - 2 - Officer. Learned counsel for the State is unable to demonstrate from the same what ultimately happened to the enquiry initiated by the District Programme Officer, the authority competent to do so, on the complaint made by the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that without completing the enquiry another has been appointed during the pendency of the writ petition. The District Programme Officer is the authority competent to enquire into allegations with regard to appointments of Aanganbari Sevikas. The counter affidavit of the respondents does not disclose what was the final order passed by the competent authority on the enquiry initiated on 11.6.2008. This court is not concerned with the decision of the respondents, in appointing, one or the other, at this stage. What concerns this court is the decision making process. The court is not satisfied from the counter affidavit of the respondents that they have acted prudently in the decision making process by ignoring the - 3 - N.H./ proceedings already commenced by the District Programme Officer on 11.6.2008. In absence of any statement in the counter affidavit that the proceedings initiated on 11.6.2008 have been concluded, this Court directs the District Programme Officer to complete the enquiry initiated by him after hearing of concerned including the petitioner and the private respondents and disposed of the same by a reasoned and speaking order, when any appointment made at any point of time on the post in question shall necessarily have to abide by such order that shall be passed by the District Programme Officer and which is required to be done within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed. ( Navin Sinha,J.)