IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6876 of 2010 1. MINTA KUMARI, W/O SHRI RAJNISH KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-CHHOTKI MASAURHI (EAST),P.O.+P.S.-MASAURHI,DISTRICT-PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR I.C.D.S.,BIHAR AT PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER,PATNA DIVISION,PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER CUM MAGISTRATE CUM DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER,PATNA. 6. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AT MASAURHI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 7. THE SUB DIVISIONAL WELFARE OFFICER, MASAURHI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 8. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER,MASAURHI , ANCHAL,MASAURHI, DISTRICT-PATNA. 9. THE FEMALE SUPERVISOR, BLOCK- MASAURHI, DISTRICT- PATNA. 10. THE SECRETARY OF THE GRAM PANCHAYAT- REWA, ANCHAL- MASAURHI,DISTRICT-PATNA. 11. THE POPULARLY ELECTED MUKHIYA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT REWA,ANCHAL- MASAURHI,DISTRICT-PATNA. 12. MINTA DEVI, W/O KISHORE KUMAR, R/O VILLAGE-CHHOTKI MASAURHI,DISTRICT-PATNA. 13. SMT. MANISHA THAKUR, W/O SHRI PRAHLAD THAKUR, R/O VILLAGE- CHHOTKI MASAURHI,DISTRICT-PATNA. For the Petitoner: Amrit Abhijit, Manoj Kumar Gupta, Upendra Yadav, Advs. For the State : Kumar Alok, Adv. ----------- 3/ 05/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents also. The petitioner assails the order dated 6.4.2010 terminating her appointment from the post of Angan Bari Sevika at the Angan Bari Centre, Chhotki Masaudhi (East) Code No.151 within Gram Panchayat- Rewa, Block – Masaudhi, district- Patna in pursuance of an order of - 2 - this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No.15962/09 preferred by one Minta Devi, wife of Kishore Kumar. The petitioner is Minta Kumari, wife of Shri Rajnish Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before this Court during submissions a certified copy of the entire writ petition in C.W.J.C. No.15962/09. The prayer therein was to quash the order dated 21.2.2008, Memo. No.763 of the District Magistrate. In question was the appointment of one Smt. Manisha Thakur at the Angan Bari Centre No.151 Chhotki Masourhi, East. The grievance noticed was that despite her selection Minta Devi, wife of Kishore Kumar was denied selection in preference to Manisha Thakur. The District Magistrate heard both sides and by the impugned order the services of Smt. Manisha Thakur was terminated. Respondent No.13 was aggrieved by that part of the impugned order which went on to direct fresh selection and appointment after removal of Smt Manisha Thakur. In that background this Court in C.W.J.C. No.15962/09 observed that if respondent No.13 had moved during the life of the panel and a palpably illegal appointment had been made, she had a right to be considered without unnecessarily initiating fresh process. The direction for fresh selection was accordingly set aside. The petitioner Minta Devi, wife of Rajnish Kumar was not a party in - 3 - C.W.J.C. No.15962/09. The writ petition raised no issues with regard to her appointment. It is therefore apparently obvious that the petitioner was clearly out of the purview of any order in C.W.J.C. No.15962/09. The authority implementing the order dated 23.12.2009 in C.W.J.C. No.15962/09 was obliged to apply his mind to the fact that the order was confined on facts to those who were parties to the writ petition. If in the meantime certain developments had taken place and the appointment of Manisha Thakur no more an issue and the official respondents were of the opinion that the services of the petitioners were required to be dispensed with as a consequence of the order of the Court, their remedy lay in filing an appropriate application for modification and/or clarification before this Court. Alternatively they could have issued a show cause notice to the petitioner before passing any orders. This Court in C.W.J.C. No.15962/09 did not grant any liberty to the official respondents to pass any orders contrary to law and natural justice, much less with regard to a person who was not a party and had nothing to do with the dispute in C.W.J.C. No.15962/09. Perhaps, a little caution and a little application of mind in place of what may be described as a situation of complete non-application of mind, may have saved the - 4 - official respondents themselves much time and expenses. In light of the above discussion, the order dated 6.4.2010 is set aside and the matter remanded to the District Magistrate, Patna. Since the application is being disposed off without notice to respondent No.13, this Court directs that status quo as on date between the petitioner and the respondent No.13 shall be maintained. The District Magistrate, Patna is obliged to give a hearing to the petitioner and the respondent No.13 in light of the present discussion and pass a final appropriate order within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The jurisdiction of the District Magistrate at this stage is confined to adjudication by him if the petitioner was a party in C.W.J.C. No.15962/09 and was covered by the order of this Court passed therein or did it relate to any others. If the petitioner was not a party and the matter related to another, the petitioner has to be reinstated. This shall, however, not bar the District Magistrate from initiating any fresh proceedings in accordance with law after such reinstatement if he were of the opinion that the appointment of the petitioner also was not sustainable vis-à-vis the claim of respondent No.13. It if clarified that the two proceedings are different - 5 - and cannot be merged into one. The writ applications stand disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)