IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5772 of 2010 VEENA KUMARI, W/O SANJIT KUMAR DAS, R/O VILLAGE - BARHI YUSUFPUR, P.O.- HAJIPUR, P.S - INDUSTRIAL AREA, BLOCK HAJIPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI, BIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, TIRHUT SUB DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR. 3. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI, BIHAR. 5. REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, TIRHUT SUB DIVISION, MUZAFFARPUR, BIHAR. 6. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, VAISHALI DISTRICT, BIHAR. 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER, HJIPUR SADAR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI, BIHAR. 8. RAKTI DEVI,THE WART COUNCILLOR, WARD NO. 26, WARD COUNCIL, W/O LATE RAM CHANDRA RAM, HJIPUR , DISTRICT- VAISHALI. 9. SUNITA KUMARI, W/O RAJESHWAR RAM, R/O VILLAGE - BARHI YUSUFPUR, P.O.- HAJIPUR, P.S - INDUSTRIAL AREA, BLOCK HAJIPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. ----------- 2. 02/12/2010 By Annexure-9 dated 8.12.2009 the Regional Development Officer, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur had informed the District Magistrate, Hajipur that in Case No.21 of 2009 the District Programme Officer had found that this petitioner was daughter- in-law of the area under Anganbari Centre No.51 whereas respondent no.9 Sunita Kumari was daughter of the area covered by the Centre. It was mentioned that the District Programme Officer had found that this petitioner was having 67.55% marks whereas 2 respondent no.9 was having 58.67% marks. On account of these reasons, the Regional Development Officer directed that respondent no.9 should be removed from the post of Anganbari Sevika and petitioner should be appointed. In the said letter it was also noticed that no one in the married family of the petitioner was in Government service to which effect petitioner had already filed affidavit. No order having been passed for removal of respondent no.9 and for appointment of petitioner, she has moved this Court. Counter affidavit has been filed, sworn by the C.D.P.O., in which it is stated that respondent no.9 has now been removed from the post. However, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled for appointment as her father is in Government service. A communication of the District Magistrate, Vaishali to the Regional Development Officer, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur to this effect has been annexed as Annexure-A. For coming to this conclusion, the District Magistrate in his letter has relied upon Government guidelines contained in letter no.2783 dated 3 3.10.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that disqualification in the said letter is in respect of the family members of a daughter-in-law i.e. member of her married family and it does not relate to any member of her parental family. He submits that father of the petitioner may be in Government service as teacher somewhere, but now after marriage she has migrated to her married family and is therefore residing in the area covered by Centre No.51 as a daughter-in-law and in her married family no member is in Government service. Hence, he submits that petitioner is fully entitled for such appointment. He submits that in the circumstances, decision of the respondents to start process of appointment afresh is unwarranted and the order of the Regional Development Officer should be complied with by appointment of petitioner as Anganbari Sevika of the Centre. Letter No.2783 dated 3.10.2006 relied upon by the District Magistrate is not on the record. Therefore, this Court is unable to give a definite finding as to whether in 4 terms of the said letter petitioner is disqualified or not. Therefore, as the letter of the District Magistrate dated 12.12.2009 is addressed to the Regional Development Officer, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, this Courts directs him to consider the provisions of the said letter and come to a definite finding as to whether petitioner, being a daughter-in-law of a family of which no one is in Government service and is residing within the area covered by Anganbari Centre No.51, is entitled for her appointment or not. The decision in this respect must be taken within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till that date, no process for fresh appointment of Anganbari Sevika for the Centre shall be taken up by the respondents. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)