IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17129 of 2009 1. SUNITA KUMARI W/O ARUN KUMAR SINGH VILL-KANI GAURIYA, GRAMPANCHAYAT KAKWARA, P.O- CHUHIYA, P.S & DISTT- BANKA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BANKA, DISTT- BANKA 5. DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICE BANKA DISTT- BANKA 6. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, BANKA, DISTT- BANKA 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BANKA, DISTT- BANKA 8. THE MUKHIA OF GRAM PANCHAYAT KAKWARA, DISTT- BANKA 9. SMT. KIRAN LATA DEVI, W/O DINESH PRASAD MANDAL, R/O VILL KANI GAURIYA, P.O- CHUHIYA, P.S & DISTT- BANKA with CWJC No.391 of 2010 1. KIRANLATA DEVI W/O DINESH PD. MANDAL R/O VILL.- KANIGARHIYA, P.S.- BANKA, DISTT.- BANKA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANKA 4. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER BANKA 5. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BANKA 6. THE SECRETARY BIHAR SANSKRIT EDUCATION BOARD, PATNA 7. THE EXAMINATION CONTROLLER BIHAR SANSKRIT EDUCATION BOARD, PATNA 8. THE HEAD MASTER, PANDIT SHREE SARYU HAJARI ABHYUDAY SANSKRITOCHCH SCHOOL ABHYUDAYNAGAR, P.S.- AMARPUR, DISTT.- BANKA ----------- 3. 8.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board respondent in C.W.J.C. No. 391 of 2010. The controversy relates to appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 391 of 2010, 2 is aggrieved by her termination while the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17129 of 2009, claims the right to be considered and appointed consequent to such termination. In question, substantially is the order of the District Magistrate dated 25.11.2009 terminating the service of the petitioner in former case. Though counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 17129 of 2009 sought to urge additional grounds to assail the appointment of the petitioner in the former, this Court is not persuaded to entertain the same at this stage as it is only the order dated 25.11.2009 of the District Magistrate and the recitals contained therein which are to be tested by this Court. The allegations relate to allegedly fraudulent Madhyama certificates of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 391 of 2010, and termination on that ground. On enquiry made the respondent Board on 4.5.2009, reported that the certificates were fake. On 17.8.2009, it reported that the certificates were genuine. The school from which the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 391 of 2010 claims to have studied on 14.7.2009 supported the genuineness of her candidature. On 10.11.2009, the respondent Board again confirms the genuineness of the certificates and lastly on 18.11.2009, the respondent Board states that the certificates were fake. These are the foundational facts on which the termination is challenged. The District Magistrate simply refers to these reports. 3 The behaviour and action of the respondent Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board leaves much to be desired. The order of the District Magistrate dated 25.11.2009 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board to hear the petitioners in both the writ applications and then pass a reasoned and speaking order on the genuineness or otherwise of the educational qualification certificates of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 391 of 2010. let the same be done within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Chairman. The petitioner in either writ application depending on the final order to be passed by the Chairman afresh, shall be at liberty to raise all issues of facts and law appropriately before the District Programme Officer with regard to appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika when he is expected to act forthwith expeditiously without any delay on the findings arrived at by the Chairman or otherwise. Pending disposal of this application, nothing shall prevent the respondent State from making any incharge working arrangement on the post held by the terminated person. The writ applications stand disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)