IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.505 of 2010 LALITA KUMARI W/O SANJAY KUMAR R/O VILL.- RAMPUR ASURAR, P.O.- BITHAULI, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY SPECIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR 5. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 6. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER-CUM-PROGRAMME OFFICER VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 7. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER HAJIPUR SADAR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 8. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BLOCK BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 9. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION DISTT.- VAISHALI 10. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK- BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 11. SMT. INDU DEVI W/O AKHILESH SINGH MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAGHUNATHPUR, IMADPUR, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 12. SHEO CHANDRA RAM, PANCHAYAT SACHIV GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ RAGHUNATHPUR AMODPUR, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 13. SMT. KUMARI INDRAKALA SINGH W/O HARISHANKAR SINGH R/O VILL.- IMADPUR, P.O.- IMADPUR, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 14. BASANTI DEVI W/O SUBODH SAHNI R/O VILL.- RAGHUNATHPUR IMADPUR, P.O. IMADPUR, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 15. SHARMILA RAMPURI W/O SITARAM RAMPURI R/O VILL.- RAMPUR ASURAR, P.O. BITHAULI, P.S.- BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI 16. RUPLAL MAHTO S/O LATE FUDDI MAHTO R/O VILL.- RAMPUR ASURAR, P.O. BITHAULI, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTT.- VAISHALI ----------- 2 23.03.2011. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the State. L.P.A. has been preferred against order dated 3.2.2010, passed in C.W.J.C.No. 17154 of 2009, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The appellant was terminated from the post of Anganwari 2 Sewika by the District Magistrate on 8.3.2008 which was subsequently upheld by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 13.4.2009. The order of termination was passed on two grounds. Firstly, that no proper procedure during selection was followed and secondly that husband of the appellant was a Panchayat Teacher, thus she incurs disqualification as per under Rule 3(e) of the guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Sewika. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Collector issued order of her termination without hearing her. Furthermore, the post of Panchayat Teacher is not a Government post and Rule 3(e) will operate as a disqualification if her husband would be a Government employee which is not the case here. We have perused the perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Even if we accept that the post of Panchayat Teacher is not be a Government post for disqualification, still her appointment cannot be saved, as the same was made without following the procedure provided in the guidelines as held by the learned Single judge affirming the order of Commissioner, Tirhut Division. It has been found that the circle for which she was selected was for Poshak Kshetra of OBC to which she did not belong. In the result, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single judge affirming the order of termination. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. (S.K.Katriar,J). Shashi (S.P.Singh,J).