IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1567 of 2010 RANJU DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 29.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The preliminary ground urged to assail the order dated 10.12.2008 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Sewika is that the District Programme Officer was not the competent authority to decide issues of appointment as distinct from any deficiency in the discharge of duties by the Anganwari Sewika. The appropriate authority according to the Division Bench judgment reported in 2010(2) PLJR 374 (Prabha Kumari Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) was the District Magistrate alone. The order being without jurisdiction stands vitiated. This question stands answered by the simple reasoning that prior to the enunciation of the Division Bench judgment, the litigant, authority and this Court was proceeding on the premise that it was the District Programme Officer who was alone competent to decide all issues with regard to appointment. The Division Bench judgment has been delivered on 16.2.2010. It does not state that it shall have retrospective effect or that matters 2 decided by the District Programme Officer shall stand reopened by reason of the order. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the present impugned order dated 10.12.2008 being prior to the enunciation of the law by the Division Bench cannot be faulted with on that ground. The next submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the impugned order is in the teeth of the report of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 26.10.2007. The report of the S.D.O. states that there was no error in ascertaining the dominant caste, “the mapping register”. The impugned order in the penultimate paragraph while referring to the report of the S.D.O. wrongly and incorrectly mentions that the latter has also reported defects in the ascertainment of the dominant caste despite a mapping register. In fact, the report of the S.D.O. dated 26.10.2007 has been affirmed by the District Programme officer himself on 21.6.2008 followed by affirmation of the District Magistrate dated 3.7.2008 and the file closed. In view of the finding of this Court that the impugned order dated 10.12.2008 does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction, according to the rules the appellate authority is the District Magistrate. The petitioner is stated to have filed a representation/appeal before the appellate authority. Liberty is given to the petitioner, if 3 so advise, to supplement the pleadings in the appeal/representation. Let the appellate authority now decide the representation/appeal after hearing all concerned within a maximum period of two months from the date of presentation and/or receipt of a copy of this order or the amended pleading whichever be latter. This Court specifically directs the District Magistrate to deal with and decide the issues of the report of the S.D.O. dated 26.10.2007 affirmed by the District Programme Officer and the District Magistrate dated 21.6.2008 and 3.7.2008 as was urged before this Court. This is considered necessary not only to facilitate judicial review but to bring the entire litigation to an end. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)