IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1647 of 2009 1. TUNNI KUMARI W/O MAJJU RAVIDAS R/O VILL- LALU NAGAR, UNDER BARAT PANCHAYAT, P.O. BAJNATHPUR, P.S. HISUA, DISTT. NAWADA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPTT. OF WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, DEPTT. OF WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE NAWADA 6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE-CUM-DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER NAWADA 7. THE C.D.P.O. MASKAUR, P.S. HISUA, DISTT. NAWADA 8. THE B.D.O. MESKAUR/HISUA, NAWADA 9. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BARAT, P.S. HISUA, DISTT. NAWADA ----------- For the Appellant :- Mr. Anjani Kumar. For the Respondents :- Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to AAG I. ------ 3 12/01/2010 I.A. No. 8702 of 2009. This is an application for condonation of delay of two days in preferring the appeal. 2. Having heard Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Assistant Counsel to AAG I, the delay in filing the appeal stands - 2 - condoned. I.A. accordingly stands disposed of. L.P.A. No. 1647 of 2009 : 3. As we have condoned the delay, we are inclined to take up the appeal for admission. Admit. On consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is finally heard. 4. In this intra-court appeal the assail is to the order dated 15.10.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W. J.C. No. 13493 of 2009 whereby he after placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Smt. Sajjan Devi & Others Vs. State of Bihar and others, 2004(2) PLJR, 833 has expressed the opinion that when an Angan Bari Sevika is removed from service, she being an appointee under the scheme, the only thing that is required to comply is the principles of natural justice and as the same has been complied with, there was no warrant for interference by this Court. 5. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the State government has brought a set of guidelines relating to integrated child development scheme wherein in clause 10, there is a - 3 - provision what procedure is to be adopted while removing Angan Bari Sevika. The said guidelines in Hindi Clause 10 on being translated into English reads as under: “10. Exempting Sevika/Sahayika from selection:- The District Officer after review on the proposal received in respect of exempting sevika/sahayika from selection with reference to aforesaid paragraphs 8 and 9, shall issue speaking order in respect of exemption from selection after giving an opportunity to concerned sevika/ sahayika to place his/her side.” 6. It is urged by Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant that the District Magistrate has passed an order but that was not a speaking order. The same was quashed in appeal by the Commissioner and the matter was remitted. Thereafter the subsequent Collector passed an order on 30.6.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) but the said order suffers from the same vice inasmuch as it is not a speaking order. To substantiate the said facet, learned counsel has taken us to the said order to highlight that the District Magistrate has only referred to the allegations and eventually stated that there was no error in the earlier order passed by the District Magistrate. On a perusal of the aforesaid order, there can be no scintilla of doubt that it is not a speaking order. That apart, - 4 - the District Magistrate could not have stated that the earlier order passed by the District Magistrate was valid in law, inasmuch as, it is stood quashed after intervention of the appellate forum. 7. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and that of the District Magistrate dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and direct the District Magistrate to pass an independent order applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case after affording an opportunity of hearing to the present appellant. To cut short the delay, it is directed that the appellant shall appear before the concerned District Magistrate on 22nd February,2010 and on that date the District Magistrate shall fix another date for hearing and, in any case, finalise the matter by the 5th of April, 2010. 8. In the result, the Letters Patent appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. 9. A free copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to AAG I so that he may - 5 - communicate to the District Magistrate concerned to do the needful in the matter. AMIN (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J)