IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18021 of 2010 Smt.Indu Kumari Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16740 of 2011 1. Smt. Indu Devi W/O Sri Shobhendra Yadav Resident Of Village-Tandwan Tola, Naya Bigha, P.S.-Ghoshi, District- Jehanabad. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 3. The District Magistrate-Cum-Collector, Jehanabad. 4. The District Programme Officer, Jehanabad. 5. The C.D.P.O. Modanganj, Jehanabad. 6. Smt. Indu Kumari W/O Sri Binod Yadav Resident Of Village-Naya Bigha, Tandwan, P.O.-Panditganj, P.S.-Ghoshi, District-Jehanabad. ---------------------------------- 4. 21.11.2011 CWJC No. 18021 of 2010 seeks quashing of the order dated 12.8.2010 passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Division, allowing the Appeal of Respondent no. 5. CWJC No. 16740 of 2011 has been filed by the Respondent no. 5 seeking implementation of the same. Both the applications are therefore integrally connected and are therefore being heard together. On 3.11.2010 the Court while issuing notice to Respondent no. 5 in CWJC No. 18021 of 2010 had passed exparte orders of status quo. The matter has been listed today upon the motion slip filed by the Respondent no. 5 on the submission that the interim order was exparte in nature. The name of the Counsel for the petitioner is legibly printed in the cause list. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. The Court has heard Counsel for the State and the Counsel for Respondent no. 5. 2 From the pleadings in CWJC No. 18021 of 2010 the Court is satisfied that the order for termination of Respondent no. 5 from the post of Anganwari Sevika, was exparte in nature. Annexure 1 to the writ application suggests to the same effect. Any doubt that may have existed on this factual aspect is clarified from the appellate order at Annexure 2. The appellate authority after having heard Respondent no. 5 has found explanation for her absence justifiable and accepted the same. The law stands well settled in (2004) 2 PLJR 833 (DB) that Anganwari Sevika, though not a government servant, still cannot be removed in violation of principle of natural justice as a basic requirement. Once the termination was contrary to law and the Commissioner accepted the explanation furnished by the petitioner for her absence which she may have done satisfactorily to the satisfaction of the original authority had she been given the opportunity. There is no occasion for the Court to interfere with the decision of the respondents regarding an agent who had been engaged for dissemination of a welfare scheme. Since the order of Status quo was passed after the order of the Commissioner setting aside the termination of Respondent no. 5 presumably the petitioner has not been able to get any advantage of the status quo order. Presumably that evidences the lack of interest to contest. If the order of the Commissioner has been upheld the respondent no. 5 is clearly entitled to the benefit of the same in accordance with law. CWJC No. 16740 of 2011 is allowed. Let the official respondents proceed in light of the present discussion and proceed to take a final decision on the claims made in 3 CWJC No. 16740 of 2011 within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. No useful purpose is now going to be served by seeking a counter affidavit in CWJC No. 16740 of 2011. CWJC No. 18021 of 2010 is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)