IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15279 of 2009 1. BINDU KUMARI W/O SANJAY KUMAR VILL- SORHIPUR, P.O. RAJA BIGHA, P.S. NARHAT, DISTT. NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DEPTT. OF WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADA 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER NAWADA 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER NARHAT, DISTT. NAWADA 7. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY KONIBAR GRAM PANCHAYAT, KONIBAR, NAWADA 8. KHAGIA DEVI W/O CHOTE LAL RAJBANSI, MUKHIYA KONIBAR GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O VILL+P.O. RAJABIGHA, DISTT. NAWADA 9. NANDANI KUMARI W/O LATE SATENDRA KUMAR VILL+P.O. RAJA BIGHA, P.S. NARHAT, DISTT. NAWADA. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr. A. Amanullah, S.C.-17 Jawed Gaffar Khan, A.C. TO S.C.-17. ----------- 2/ 30/11/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was selected as an Angan Bari Sevika pursuant to which she joined. In pursuance of a complaint on 11.10.2008 by Annexure-4, the District Programme Officer did not find favour with the petitioner’s appointment and cancelled the same. On 13.3.2009 the District Programme Officer passed a fresh reasoned order in pursuance of the complaint made in the District Public Grievances Cell that the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with law when he recalled his earlier order dated 11.10.2008. Respondent No.9 aggrieved by the selection of the petitioner came to this Court in C.W.J.C. 2 No.11431/09 which was disposed on 4.9.2009. On that date the order dated 13.3.2009 of the District Programme Officer was not placed before this Court when it directed consideration of the case of respondent No.9 consequent to the alleged vacancy created after the termination of the petitioner on 11.10.2008. The District Programme Officer by a reasoned and speaking order dated 22.10.2009 opined that respondent No.9 had not placed correct facts before this Court when the order dated 4.9.2009 came to be passed in C.W.J.C. No.11431/09. The District Magistrate on 26.10.2009 in pursuance of the orders of this Court proceeded to set aside the appointment of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 11.10.2008 of the District Programme Officer. While doing so, he cursorily dealt with the order of the District Programme Officer dated 13.3.2009 by setting it aside without any discussion of the reasons for the illegality in the order of the District Programme Officer dated 13.3.2009. This Court finds substance in the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the District Magistrate acted quite simply in terms of the orders of this Court when this Court had not discussed or dealt with the report dated 13.3.2009 at all. 3 Learned counsel for the State, from the impugned order dated 26.10.2009 finds it difficult to cull out the reasons why the District Magistrate set aside the order of the District Programme Officer dated 13.3.2009. The order being non-speaking in nature is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The District Magistrate is directed to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order dealing appropriately with the facts as discussed above, more particularly the order dated 13.3.2009 on its own merits as also that it was not placed before this Court, preferably within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him, after hearing all concerned, including respondent No.9. The application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)