IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2077 of 2010 1. NILAM KUMARI W/O KUSUM LAL MANDAL R/O VILL- RAMPUR, P.S PIPRA, DISTT- SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISION, SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SUPAUL, DISTT- SAHARSA 5. THE DIRECTOR, ICDS, DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, SUPAUL, DISTT- SUPAUL 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, PIPRA, DISTT- SUPAUL 8. KANCHAN KUMARI W/O DEVENDRA KUMAR R/O VILL- RAMPUR TOLA JAMUAHA, P.S PIPRA, DISTT- SUPAUL ----------- 2/ 10/08/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. This Court does not consider it necessary at this stage to issue notice to respondent No.8 since her interests are sought to be adequately protected in the present order. The controversy relates to the selection and appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika vis-à-vis the petitioner and respondent No.8 at Gram Panchayat Raj Rampur, Ward No.8, Centre No.89. The petitioner raised a grievance before the District Magistrate against denial of appointment on the ground that she was not a resident of the village in - 2 - question. The District Magistrate by his order dated 27.2.2009 noticed that both she and her husband were residents of the village in question after factual verification. This was questioned by respondent No.8 before the Commissioner. By his order dated 16.12.2009 the Commissioner has held that the District Magistrate did not deal with or consider the aspect that the name of the petitioner found place in the voter lists at two places and on that reasoning he set aside the order of the District Magistrate dated 27.2.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a communication of the Director, I.C.D.S. dated 21.9.2007 that if a married woman was residing with her husband in the same village which was her home before matrimony, that shall not amount to disqualification if otherwise her husband’s residence in the same village is proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner raises a short submission that the finding of fact arrived at by the District Magistrate in the order dated 27.2.2009 that her husband was a resident of the same village in which she resided prior to matrimony has not been found to be wrong or set aside by the Commissioner. The order is bad as it does not deal with and consider relevant materials and is based on irrelevant and extraneous materials. - 3 - Learned counsel for the State invites the attention of the Court to Clause-13 of the guidelines of 2006 regulating appointment and service conditions of Angan Bari Sevikas to submit that in the present matter the Director, I.C.D.S. was the appropriate authority to examine issues. The order of the Commissioner dated 16.12.2009 is set aside. Directions are issued to the District Magistrate to now proceed to forward the controversy to the Director, I.C.D.S. in terms of Regulation-13 within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before him. The Director, I.C.D.S. is required to hear the petitioner and respondent No.8 and pass a final appropriate reasoned and speaking order preferably within two months form the date that the District Magistrate submits the records before him. In the meantime, status quo as in between the petitioner and respondent No.8 with respect to the post in question shall be maintained and no fresh appointment shall be made by the authorities so as to prevent creation of any third party rights. Nothing in this order shall preclude the respondents from making any working in-charge arrangement on the post in question during the interregnum period so that Government - 4 - schemes are not affected. The application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)