IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11516 of 2010 1. SULEKHA DEVI W/O SUNIL KUMAR R/O VILL.- RAHRIA (WARD NO. 12), P.O.- MANULLAHPATTI, P.S.- BHARGHAWAN, DISTT.- ARARIA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ARARIA 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, ARARIA 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAM OFFICER, ARARIA 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORBISGANJ, DISTT.- ARARIA 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, BHARGAWAN, ARARIA 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, BHARGAWAN, DISTT.- ARARIA 8. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT MANULLAHPATTI, P.S.- BHARGAWAN, DISTT.- ARARIA 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, MANULLAHPATTI, P.S.- BHARGAWAN, DISTT.- ARARIA 10. PUNAM KUMARI W/O SUNIL KUMAR YADAV R/O VILL.- RAHARIA, P.S.- BHARGAWAN, DISTT.- ARARIA ----------- 2 04.03.2011 By order dated 30.12.2007 (wrongly mentioned as dated 17.03.2008), vide Annexure-7, the Collector had cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika on the ground that she had submitted wrong mark-sheet. Petitioner thereafter produced some certificates from the Board and filed an application for reconsideration of the matter. Her application along with the materials were sent to the Child Development Project Officer by the Collector through his letter dated 17.03.2008, vide Annexure-8, directing him to send the entire records to the S.D.O., Farbisganj for an enquiry and 2 report. The S.D.O., Farbisganj thereafter enquired the matter and submitted a report, vide Annexure-10 dated 16.02.2009, in which, he requested the Collector to examine the matter from his own level and take a final decision, if necessary, after getting the certificates produced by the petitioner verified from the Board. Matter, thus, traveled back to the Collector who had changed by that time. The successor Collector by order dated 16.03.2010, as contained in Annexure-9, on the objections of the respondent, dropped the matter on the ground that he had no powers to review the order passed by the earlier Collector. It may be made clear that on the application of the petitioner when the matter was referred to the S.D.O. it was in exercise of the administrative powers of the Collector. The S.D.O. referred the matter back to the Collector and Collector considered the same for taking a final decision. It was not a judicial exercise of power that he could not review his earlier order without there being provision for the same under any law. It was a clearly administrative exercise of power which the 3 Collector was in administrative capacity competent to exercise and recall the order of his predecessor if he found the order as not correct on facts. Clearly, in the circumstances, the Collector failed to act in exercise his jurisdiction in the matter. Annexure-9, the impugned order of the Collector dated 16.03.2010 in Misc. Case No. 109/2009-10 is, therefore, quashed. The matter is remitted back to the present Collector in office to consider the same on merits, hear the parties, call for the entire records and, if necessary, get all the mark- sheets of the petitioner available on record verified from any authority as he may think appropriate and thereafter to come to a final decision in the matter on merits preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)