IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.7535 OF 2008 SMT.KUMARI SULEKHA RANI @SULEKHA RANI, WIFE OF RAGHUBIR KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE DERHPURA, POLICE STTION MAHNAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI ……………………………………….PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MAHANAR 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, MAHANAR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR 6. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT DERHPURA ……………………………………………………………………RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MS. PARINITA RAI, AC TO GP 7 ********** 2 03/05/2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur as it has been passed without issuing the petitioner a show cause notice. Learned Counsel for the State relies on a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Kanti Devi & Others vs. The State of Bihar & Others [2005 (4) PLJR 432] in which this Court had held that no notice is required before the Aanganbari Sevikas are disengaged on the ground of irresponsibility or on the ground that they are not performing their duties. In this case, the question was whether the selection was made tola wise. It was found that in fact it was not made at the tola level for the purpose of selecting the Aanganbari Sevikas for each Centre separately. Therefore, the Court found that there 2 was great anomaly in the manner of appointment. In that context, the Court has stated that in such cases, where there is a grave anomaly in the procedure of appointment, notices are not necessary to the Aanganbari Sevikas who are voluntary workers. In the present case, the District Magistrate has instituted a proceeding for cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that one Sumitra Devi had made a complaint, that there was some anomaly in the procedure of appointment. While, the District Magistrate had noticed Sumitra Devi and the Child Development Project Officer, no steps were taken to issue notice to the affected person. If the District Magistrate had suo motu conducted the enquiry, by calling for the records, he could have passed an order, stating the reasons for holding that the entire procedure was beyond the guidelines without noticing anyone. Such an act would be justified provided the reasons were good and valid. In this context, I may refer to sub-clause 2 of clause 8 of the guidelines issued in the year 2006, which reads as follows :- “;fn p;fur lsfodk@lgkf;dk dks izf’k{k.k laca/kh ukekadu i= fuxZr dj fn;k x;k gS ysfdu og vizf’kf{kr gS] rks tkap inkf/kdkjh lHkh lk{;ksa ds lkFk vko’;d dkjZokbZ gsrq izfrosnu ftyk inkf/kdkjh dks miyC/k djk,axs A ftyk inkf/kdkjh ,sls fooknh ekeyksa dh lwpuk lacaf/kr 3 ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh dks vfoyac miyC/k djk nsaxs] rkfd lacaf/kr lsfodk@lgkf;dk dks izf’k{k.k esa ugha Hkstk tk, A rRi’pkr~ ftyk inkf/kdkjh lacaf/kr i{kksa dks fof/kor lqudj ,oa lHkh rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa ,d ekg ds vanj eq[kj vkns’k (Speaking Order ) ikfjr djsaxsA vkjksi izekf.kr gksus ij ukekadu i= jn~n djrs gq, ftyk inkf/kdkjh lHkh rF;ksa ds lkFk lacaf/kr xzke izpk;r ds eqf[k;k dks lwfpr djsaxs fd os ljdkjh funsZ’k@ekinaMksa ds vkyksd esa lgh O;fDr dj p;u djsa A lkFk gh os lacaf/kr cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh dks ekxZnf’kZdk ds daf.Mdk 6 ds rgr p;u dh izfdz;k izkjaHk djus dk funsZ’k nsaxs A” These guidelines envisage that the parties ought to be heard and thereafter a speaking order should be passed. In the present case, since the complainant and the Child Development Project Officer have been heard, it was incumbent that the District Magistrate ought to have heard the petitioner as well. Normally, there is a provision of appeal against the order of the District Magistrate, however, since the matter relates to the basic concept of “hearing the parties” and following the principles of natural justice, before passing an appropriate order, I think it proper to remand the matter back to the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur, who will issue notice to the petitioner, the complainant Sumitra Devi, as well as the Child Development Project Officer or any other concerned Officer of the Department at the district level and 4 thereafter, pass an appropriate order within a period of four months from the date of valid service of notice on the parties. The petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before the District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur within a period of four weeks from today. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )