IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8643 of 2010 1. KUMARI PALLAVI SINHA, W/O SRI BASANT KUMAR, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BELA, P.O. RAHIARI KOTHI, P.S. HATHAUDI,DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME DIRECTORATE, PATNA. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA. 5. THE COLLECTOR, SAMASTIPUR. 6. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER SAMASTIPUR. 7. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ROSERA. 8. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER SHIVAJI NAGAR, SAMASTIPUR. 9. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SHIVAJI NAGAR, SAMASTIPUR. 10. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ RASIYARI NORTH, UNDER SHIVAJI NAGAR BLOCK DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 11. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ RASIYARI NORTH, UNDER SHIVAJI NAGAR BLOCK DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. 12. INDRA KALA SINHA, W/O GAURI MANDAL, R/O VILLAGE BELA, P.O.- RAHIYARI KOTHI,P.S.- HATHAUDHI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ----------- 2 15.04.2011 Petitioner has challenged an order of the Commissioner dated 05.01.2010, as contained in Annexure-14, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner, against the order of the Collector dated 31.10.2008, has been rejected on the ground that, in terms of the Government circular dated 25.07.2008, it was the District Programme Officer, who was empowered to pass orders in respect of any irregularity committed in selection of 2 Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika for the centre and issue orders of cancellation of their engagement against which the Collector was to consider appeals. The said circular did not create any role for the Commissioner in the matter and, therefore, the appeal of the petitioner before the Commissioner was not maintainable. After going through the said circular dated 25.07.2008, as contained in Annexure-13, the view of the Commissioner appears to be correct. In the circumstances, if the said circular would have remained in operation, this Court would have quashed the order of the Collector and would have remitted the matter back to the District Programme Officer for enquiry and for a decision. However, the legal position has changed again by another circular issued by the Department which is effective from 14.06.2010. Under this circular containing the Guidelines, the power of the District Programme Officer has been restricted to hold an enquiry in respect of functioning of the centre and cancelling the engagement of Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika if they are found guilty of misconduct or 3 dereliction of their duties. So far as enquiry in respect of irregularities having been committed in the selection process and cancellation of the appointment of Anganwari Sevika/Sahayika on that count has been now given to the Collector. Against the said order of the Collector, an appeal has been provided before the Divisional Commissioner who has to decide the appeal within sixty days. In the circumstances, though the Commissioner had no power to entertain the appeal against any order passed by the Collector under the circular dated 25.07.2008, now under the present Guidelines the Commissioner gets the power to hear appeals against the order of the Collector in respect of cancellation of any selection on the ground of irregularities committed in the process. Since the new Guidelines is in operation now, this Court considers it appropriate that the Commissioner should hear the appeal of the petitioner afresh on merits and decide the same after complying with the Principles of Natural Justice. In the circumstances as indicated 4 above, this writ application is allowed. The order of the Commissioner, as contained in Annexure-14, is quashed and the Commissioner, Darbhanga Division is directed to restore the appeal of the petitioner to its original file, issue notice to the parties, hear them and decide the same on merits in accordance with law, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)