IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.435 of 2010 1. GITANJALI KUMARI W/O SRI SATISH KUMAR GUPTA R/O MOH MATHURIA, GOLAPAR, PS.LAHERI, DISTT-NALANDA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DIRECTOR , SOCIAL WELFARE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. COLLECTOR NALANDA 4. DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER NALANDA 5. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BIHARSHARIF,SADAR, NALANDA 6. SRI DHANANJAI KUMAR WARD PARISHAD, WARD NO.38, BIHARSHARIF, DISTT-NALANDA ----------- 02/ 21.06.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the order passed by Collector, Nalanda in Misc. Appeal Case No. 60 of 2009 affirming the order contained in Memo No. 369 dated 28.8.2009 passed by the District Programme Officer, Nalanda terminating the petitioner from the post of Anganwari Sevika of Anganwari Centre No. 237 of Ward No. 38 of Biharsharif Municipality within the district of Nalanda. Petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganwari Sewika of Ward No. 38 considering her position in the merit list as well as fulfilling all requisite criteria mentioned in the guideline for selection of the Anganwari Sewika. Her case is that she was married with Satish Kumar Gupta, resident of - 2 - Mathuria Mohalla and since the date of her marriage in the year, 2006 she is continuously residing in Mathuria Mohalla of Ward No. 38. One Renu Devi filed complains making false allegation against her selection and an enquiry was conducted by the S.D.O., Biharsharif. The S.D.O. Biharsharif submitted his report vide letter no. 564 dated 14.7.2008. The District Programme Officer on the basis of this report and after hearing the parties, vide order contained in Memo No. 369 dated 28.8.2009 cancelled the selection of the petitioner. The petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal Case No. 60 of 2009 in the court of District Magistrate, Nalanda challenging the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Nalanda. The appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Nalanda vide order dated 1.12.2009. Both the orders have been challenged by the petitioner being illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It has also been submitted that without considering the provision relating for appointment and selection of Anganwari Sewika the impugned order has been passed. The first objection raised by the petitioner is that as per - 3 - Clause 10 of the circular relating to the appointment of Anganwari Sewika only the Collector has got jurisdiction to select or cancel the selection of an Anganwari Sewika. The District Programme Officer has not been vested with such powers under the guidelines. The Collector, Nalanda without considering this fact that District Programme Officer has exceeded his jurisdiction by cancelling the appointment of the petitioner, has affirmed this order, which is nothing less than affirming an illegal order. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an unreported decision passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 863 of 2009, where it has been held as follows:- “There can be no iota of doubt that the guidelines can be changed, but, a pregnant one, it is to be seen whether the guidelines do operate in the same field. As is perceived, the guideline 8(3) of 2006 Guidelines relates to the selection process. That is how also the guideline has been nomenclatured. If the entire guideline is scanned, it would be clear that all the guidelines do pertain to the selection process at various - 4 - stages. There is a purpose behind it. When a selection process is interdicted or annulled or declared to be non-est, a high authority has to be endowed with the responsibility and accordingly the State Government has bestowed the authority on the District Magistrate. As far as Guideline 11 of the second set of Guidelines issued on 25.7.2008 is concerned, it exclusively relates to the duties and responsibilities of the District Programme Officer. Guideline 11 deals with the irregularities of the Anganwari Sevika at Kendra. The said officer has been authorized to take appropriate action, even to remove her. The same is subject to appeal before the District Magistrate. The District Programme Officer has not been conferred any power to intervene at any stage of selection. His role comes into play qua irregularities at the Kendra. Thus, exercise of jurisdiction is distinctly compartmentalized and there can be no shadow of doubt, what has been stated in 2006 Guidelines have nothing to - 5 - do with circulars/guidelines issued for determination of duties and responsibilities of the District Programme Officer. Hence, the reliance on the said Guidelines by Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the State does not deserve acceptation. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we have no hesitation in stating that as far as the selection process is concerned it could have been only adverted to by the District Magistrate and he alone could have passed any adverse order in that regard, but in the case at hand, the order has been passed by the District Programme Officer, who has no jurisdiction in that regard.” I find force in the contention made by the petitioner. Both the impugned orders are completely illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and fit to be quashed. The other ground which has been taken by the petitioner for challenging the impugned order is regarding the petitioner’s father being in government service. Her appointment has been cancelled since petitioner’s father is a - 6 - government employee. As per the guideline there is no relevance even if the father is in government service, since daughter’s cannot be selected as per the guidelines, only daughters-in-law can be selected for the post of Anganwari Sevika. In case petitioner’s husband, father-in-law, mother- in-law or any one closely related from husband’s side would have been in govt. job, that would have been a disqualification. The reason for termination, shown in the impugned order relating to Clause (Gha) of the guideline, could not have been basis for termination. Considering these facts, prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the impugned orders is allowed. This application is allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)