IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15724 of 2008 RINKU KUMARI, W/O SRI MUNDRIKA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-NADSENA, P.O.-SARAI, P.S.-SITAMARHI, DISTRICT-NAWADA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, GAYA DIVISION, GAYA. 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA. 4. THE INCHARGE OFFICER, DISTRICT CONFIDENTIAL SECTION, NAWADA. 5. THE DISRICT WELFARE OFFICER, NAWADA. 6. DISTRICT PANCHAYAT RAJ OFFICER, NAWADA. 7. BLOCK CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MESKAUR BLOCK, DISTRICT-NAWADA. 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ RASALPURA, BLOCK MESKAUR, P.O.-SARAI, DISTRICT-NAWADA. 9. DHARMSHILA KUMARI, W/O JAIRAM PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-NADSENA, P.O.-SARAI, P.S.-SITAMARHI, DISTRICT-NAWADA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 04.02.2011 By order of the Collector, as communicated by the Incharge Officer of the District Confidential Cell of Nawada Collectorate to the Child Development Project Officer, vide Annexure-7, it appears that the petitioner’s engagement as Anganwari Sevika was sought to be cancelled on the ground that she had lesser marks whereas one Dharmshila Kumari, who was also a applicant, had higher marks and whose case was ignored in the selection process. Petitioner filed a representation before the Commissioner against the said order which has been dismissed by the Commissioner by order dated 31.7.2008, as contained in Annexure-8, on 2 altogether different ground. The Commissioner has rejected the revision of the petitioner on the ground that there were complaints that she was not running the Anganwari Centre properly and she used to be absent and careless in her functioning. Apparently, this was not the ground for cancellation of her engagement by the Collector, as evident from Annexure-7. If there was any complaint against the petitioner in respect of her functioning petitioner ought to have been given notice in this regard and ought to have been given an opportunity to explain her conduct and then only the order could be passed. Since the sole ground for cancellation of her engagement by the Collector was that she had lesser marks than the other candidates, the Commissioner should have considered the validity of the said order on that ground only in the revision. As the cancellation of her engagement was not on the ground of any lapses on her part, the Commissioner was not justified in dismissing her revision on that ground. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Commissioner dated 31.07.2008, 3 as contained in Annexure-8, is set aside. The Commissioner shall consider the representation of the petitioner against the order of the Collector strictly in the light of the findings of the Collector in his order and shall pass afresh orders after hearing the parties in accordance with law by a speaking order. Petitioner will be given liberty to plead before the Commissioner that the Collector’s order was ex parte and against the factual state of affairs. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)