IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17349 of 2009 1. SINDHU KUMARI W/O SRI AMARDEO GIRI R/O VILL.- MATHEHILAVE P.S. DARIYAPUR DISTT.- SARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR SOCIAL WELFARE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER SARAN DIVISION SARAN AT CHAPRA 4. THE COLLECTOR SARAN AT CHAPRA 5. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SONEPUR DISTT.- SARAN 6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, SARAN 7. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, DARIYAPUR, DISTT.- SARAN 8. THE MUKHIYA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BAJAHIA, DISTT.- SARAN 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BAJAHIYA, DISTT.- SARAN 10. KAVITA DEVI W/O NABODH GIRI R/O VILL.- MATHEHILAVE P.O. AND P.S. DARIYAPUR, DISTT.- SARAN ----------- 2. 10.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner claims to have been selected as an Aganwari Sewika at the Aam Sabha of the Bajahiya Gram Panchayat. Respondent no. 10, is then stated to have filed a complaint against her selection. An enquiry was held with which the petitioner was not associated and then her selection has been cancelled in an ex parte manner by the District Magistrate vide order dated 11.1.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 11.1.2008, was in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as before issuance of the same, the petitioner was required to be heard in terms of Clause-10 of the regulations of 2006 2 and Clause-11 of the regulations as amended on 25.7.2008. He further relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in 2004(3) PLJR 833, to urge that though the petitioner may not be a Government servant and may not have the protection available to them nonetheless the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice had to be complied with. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner had not been appointed but only selected. Moreover, the petitioner has a remedy available before the Commissioner to assail the orders of the District Magistrate, as the original authority who passed the order. It is the claim of the petitioner that she has obtained the impugned order under the Right to Information Act. It does not discuss the nature of the illegality in selection and simply relies upon the report of the Sub Divisional officer dated 2.10.2007. The regulations provide for an opportunity of hearing to a selected Anganwari Sewika. Even if mere selection may not create an indefensible right, before the respondents, decide not to implement the selection, there have to be sufficient, cogent and convincing reasons as in absence of the same issues of violations of the principles of natural justice assume vital 3 significance which may render the impugned orders arbitrary, especially when they are sought to be questioned. If the petitioner prefers an application before the Commissioner within 30 days from today, let the same be disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order after hearing all concerned, including respondent no. 10, within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If the petitioner files an application for any interim relief, pending disposal of the appeal to keep the lis alive, the Commissioner is required to dispose the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of the presentation of such application for interim relief. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)