IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4700 of 2009 Chinta Devi, wife of Sri Arbind Singh, resident of village- Sarosher, P.S. Dinara, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Government of Bihar, Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. 4. District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5. District Welfare Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 6. Child Development Project Officer, Kochas, Rohtas, District- Sasaram. 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Narwar, P.S. Dinara, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 8. Smt. Meena Singh, Wife of Jit Narain Singh, Resident of Village- Sarosher, Panchayat, Narwar, P.S. Dinara, District- Rohtas. ..... Respondents. ----------- 02- 16.4.2009 Heard Mr. Dronacharya for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. Kumar Udai Bhanu Rai, Government Advocate No.4. The writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the order bearing Memo No.988, dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure-6), passed by the District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, whereby he has cancelled the petitioner’s appointment as Anganbari Sevika of Anganbari Centre,Sarosah, Block- Kochas, and has directed for fresh appointment in accordance with law. 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner was so appointed by order dated 29.9.2004 (Annexure-2) at the Gram Sabha of the 2 concerned Panchayat. The writ petition further states that the criteria for selection were later on altered and comparative merit was made important basis for selection. This has led to the impugned order whereby it has been directed that fresh selection shall be made in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that alteration in law and the yardstick at a later date cannot adversely affect the existing cases. The same can only be prospective. He relies on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Malti Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 2007 (2) P.L.J.R. 325. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. We have no hesitation in taking judicial notice that first round of selection in many parts of the State of Bihar was extremely defective, and possibly corruption ridden. Therefore, the Yardstick of selection has been changed so that the aims and objects are achieved. In that view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be faulted. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/ 3