IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16260 of 2010 1. RANJU DEVI W/O RASH BIHARI OJHA R/O VILL.- MAHILA, P.O.- MAHILA, P.S.- ITARHI, DISTT.- BUXAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BUXAR 4. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, BUXAR 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER ITARHI, BUXAR 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ITARHI, BUXAR 7. THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER, BUXAR, DISTT.- BUXAR 8. SMT. RENU KUMARI W/O SANJAY KUMAR OJHA R/O VILL.- MAHILA, P.O.- MAHILA, P.S.- ITARHI, DISTT.- BUXAR ----------- 3 18.03.2011 Annexure-8 is the order of the Collector, by which, the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika was cancelled and directions were issued to hold fresh selection process. The order itself shows that notice issued to the petitioner could not be served on her and registered letter returned back. Hence, it is apparent that the petitioner was not heard before cancellation of her selection. However, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner numbered as Appeal No.152 of 2008. Her appeal has been rejected by Annexure-10 on the ground that the complainant was wrongly debarred and the charges of her being daughter-in-law of a 2 member of Panchayat Samiti whereas she was daughter-in-law of his brother. On the last date, when the case was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the memo of appeal petitioner had taken many other grounds to challenge the locus standi of the complainant and claiming that she was rightly not considered as she was not eligible. Since the memo of appeal was not available on record, this Court granted accommodation to him to produce a copy of the memo of appeal on record. Accordingly, the same has been filed through a supplementary affidavit. From memo of appeal annexed with the supplementary affidavit filed today, it is apparent that the petitioner had taken many other grounds in her appeal including the ground that the name of the said complainant was not in the mapping register. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, the name of the said father-in-law of the complainant namely, Saheb Dayal Ojha who is said to be the brother of the member of Panchayat Samittee, is also not there in the mapping register. 3 Hence, the complainant’s resident was not in the area and she was not eligible for consideration at all. He submits that, in the memo of appeal, it was asserted that, in fact, the said complainant was daughter-in- law of Judge Saheb Ojha, the member of the Panchayat Samittee, and therefore was ineligible to be considered. Learned counsel submits that the Commissioner has not considered the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner in a cryptic manner. After going through the memo of appeal, this Court finds that the appeal of the petitioner required more detailed consideration and the grounds taken by the petitioner in her appeal required proper specific consideration by the Commissioner with reference to the original records. It was more so required as undisputedly the petitioner was not heard before the Collector and the Collector’s order was ex parte. In the circumstances, in the interest of justice, the order of the Commissioner dated 23.07.2010, as contained in Annexure- 10, is set aside. The matter is remitted back 4 to the Commissioner to hear the parties afresh and consider the appeal of the petitioner and pass fresh orders in accordance with law. The hearing must be concluded and order must be passed preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)