IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11490 of 2011 Sunita Devi WIFE OF SURENDRA YADAV RESIDENT OF AHIRAWALIA, P.O. AHIRAWALIA, P.S. RAMGARHWA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. NITU DEVI WIFE OF PRAMOD KUMAR PANDEY RESIDENT OF AHIRAWALIA TOLA, SHIVPUR BRITA, P.O. AHIRWALIA, P.S. RAM GARHWA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI. 3. COMMISSIONER CUM SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MOTIHARI. 5. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, MOTIHARI 6. SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PAKRIDAYAL, EAST CHAMPARAN. 7. CHILD WELFARE PROJECT OFFICER, RAMGARHWA, P.O. RAMGARHWA, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN AT MOTIHARI. 8. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT, AHIRWALIA, TOLA CHIWATWA, P.S. AHIRWALIA, RAMGARHWA, DISTRICT MOTIHARI. ---------------------------------- 2 20/09/2011 Appointment of the petitioner on the post of Angan Bari Sevika at Centre No. 4 in Gram Panchayat Raj Ahirwalia in the district of East Champaran at Motihari became a subject matter of dispute when the respondents authorities at the local level refused to take cognizance of the complaints or allegations made by one Nitu Devi against selection of Sunita Devi, the present petitioner. She chose to approach the High Court by - 2 - filing C.W.J.C. No. 2172 of 2005. After hearing the parties the writ application was disposed of in terms of annexure-12 on 20.09.2006 giving direction upon the District Magistrate, East Champaran to decide the issue by a reasoned order. An order by the District Magistrate has now been passed which is under challenge in the present writ application. The impugned order is annexure-13 dated 18.06.2011. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order passed by the District Magistrate suffers from infirmities and the decision has the effect of creating discrimination because similarly situated other persons have been allowed to work as Angan Bari Sevika in the Panchayat whereas petitioner has been ordered to be removed and fresh process of selection has been directed. It is further contention of the petitioner that such issue ought not to be allowed to be raised after more than seven years of selection of the petitioner and that fact by itself should be enough to allow the writ application and quash the findings given by the District Magistrate. From perusal of the assertions and the annexures - 3 - annexed with the writ application, it is evident that the question of appointment made on the post of Angan Bari Sevika was a subject matter of enquiry and a report by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pakridayal was submitted to the District Magistrate pointing out many infirmities in the same in the manner in which selection to the post of Angan Bari Sevika was carried out. The infirmities were supposed to be in teeth of the guidelines issued by the State Government in the manner in which such selection had to be made but for many a years when nothing came to happen, Nitu Devi filed C.W.J.C. No. 2172 of 2005. Direction was issued by the learned Single Judge that taking cognizance of the report of the Sub-divisional Magistrate and after hearing the parties an order by way of speaking order would be passed. In view of the above, even though appointment of the petitioner has been annulled by the order of the District Magistrate dated 18.06.2011 but the fact remains that seven years have gone past only in litigation and the issue of her selection never died out. The stand of the petitioner that the delay in assailing the order should weigh in favour of the petitioner, therefore, is not based - 4 - on the actual state of affair. The District Magistrate has passed a detailed order after considering all the submissions which came to be made on behalf of either of the parties. The report of the Sub-divisional Magistrate as well as the Child Development Project Officer was also considered in light of the assertion made that the selection of the petitioner was not carried out in accordance with law. There was no mapping register or mapping of the centre carried out by the Child Development Project Officer. The Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat in connivance with the Panchayat Secretary had created a mapping register and helped to accommodate the petitioner on the post without even holding an Aam Sabha where all such eligible persons would be considered and given an opportunity. The finding of illegality and the wrong doing by the Mukhia of the Gram Panchayat by ensuring non participation of the C.D.P.O. and other authorities in the process of selection emerges from a reading of the order passed by the District Magistrate. In the opinion of the Court, the findings are rather grave and go to the root of the matter in the sense that if the selection has been - 5 - vitiated by such fraud or creation of documents and by giving a complete go bye to the process and procedure laid down by the State Government in regard to such selection, then merely because the petitioner has been allowed to continue on the post for seven years may not be good enough to put a seal of approval to such a selection. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the findings given by the District Magistrate, some of which have been noted by the Court in the earlier part of the order. If that is the present situation, then the direction of the District Magistrate to annul the appointment of the petitioner as well as give a direction to the Child Development Project officer to initiate a fresh process for such selection would be totally in consonance with the law and requirement in this regard. Since the Court does not find the decision of the District Magistrate to be in teeth of any decision of the High Curt or the law, as such, allowing the petitioner to continue on the post by interfering with the order in question would be permitting continuity of an illegality to which this Court can never be a party. - 6 - This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)