IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5171 of 2010 1. INDU KUMARI W/O SRI NARESH PRASAD R/O VILL BHOLA KURHA SOUTH, P.S.SIRDALA, DISTT-NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, INTRIGATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADA 4. THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER NAWADA 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER NAWADA 6. THE BLOCK CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER SIRDALLA, NAWADA 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, SIRDALL, DISTT-NAWADA 8. THE MUKHIYA, SANDH MANJHAGAWAN PANCHAYAT SIRDALLA BLOCK, DISTT-NAWADA 9. KUMARI MANJU W/O SRI ARUN KUMAR R/O VILL BHOLA KURHA, P.S.SIRDALLA, DISTT-NAWADA ----------- 02. 18.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the respondent no.9 who has appeared suo motu. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated 26.2.2010 rejecting her claim for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sewika, in preference to respondent no.9 on the premise that she had higher marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Programme Officer heard both sides and then passed a reasoned order unseating respondent no.9 which was questioned by her before the District Magistrate in appeal. The appeal was dismissed by a reasoned and speaking order on 30.6.2009. This order has not been challenged before 2 any superior Court and Forum and has attained finality. The District Programme Officer had then directed fresh selection which was questioned by the petitioner before the District Magistrate which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 26.2.2010. The findings in the two orders of the District Magistrate between the same parties on the same issues are self-contradictory. Learned counsel for the respondent no.9 submitted that she had questioned the appellate order dated 30.6.2009 before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1684 of 2010. It was withdrawn after the present impugned order in her favour was passed by the District Magistrate on 26.2.1010. Once the order of the District Programme Officer affirmed in appeal on 30.6.2009 has been set aside, the impugned order dated 26.2.2010 holds the field and there is no illegality warranting interference with the reinstatement/appointment of respondent no.9. There were eight applicants for the post of Anganwari Sewika . The petitioner was at serial no.2 of the panel having higher marks than respondent no.9 who was at serial no.3 of the panel. From a conjoint reading of the orders dated 30.6.2009 and 26.2.2010 it is manifest that out of eight applicants only 3 respondent no.9 was present on the date of selection before the Aam Sabha. Apart from a finding of other infirmities it concluded that no proper notice had been issued to the others while dismissing the appeal of respondent no.9. In the impugned order dated 26.2.2010 that aspect of the matter has not been considered at all and the order of the District Programme Officer directing fresh selection had been interfered only on the ground that the District Programme Officer was creating confusion by opining that it was possible that the petitioner was not allowed to mark attendance. The finding of the District Magistrate in the appellate order dated 30.6.2009 regarding absence of proper notice to all the applicants holds the field vitiating his own order dated 26.2.2010. If the controversy related between two persons, the petitioner and respondent no.9 in context of the same position and there were certain earlier orders of the District Magistrate with regard to either of the parties, prudence directs that the District Magistrate should have himself examined all aspects of the matter first and then pass a reasoned and speaking order. Had he adopted this course, the glaring contradiction between his own order dated 30.6.2009 clashing with the subsequent order dated 26.2.2010 would not have 4 occurred. Both the orders cannot co-exist. One of them is not in consonance with the law. The order dated 26.2.2010 is accordingly set aside. Respondent no.9 is restrained from functioning as an Anganwari Sewika any more. The District Magistrate shall hear both parties again and other official concerned and then pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order which must necessarily deal with his own findings in the orders dated 30.6.2009 and 26.2.2010 to arrive at a fresh conclusion in accordance with law. If the District Magistrate is satisfied of patent illegality in the selection process nothing precludes him from directing fresh advertisement and consideration in accordance with law. The District Magistrate shall confine his order to the material and evidences already available on the record only. The application stands allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)