IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13853 of 2009 SANJU DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 03.11.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was terminated from the post of Anganbari Sevika by the District Magistrate on 18.7.2008. She preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Magadh Division. Non-disposal of the appeal led her to file CWJC No. 2369 of 2009. It was disposed on 19.2.2009 with directions to the Commissioner, Magadh Division to dispose off the appeal. On 3.9.2009 the Commissioner has held that in view of the notification dated 25.7.2008 of the Department of Social Welfare, all such appeals have been transferred to the District Magistrate on 24.9.2008 and it appears that the petitioner did not bring facts properly to the attention of this court. The impugned order dated 3.9.2009 of the Commissioner at paragraph 4 also notices that learned counsel for the State had contended before the Commissioner also that if the order was of the District Magistrate, the appeal lie before the Commissioner. Under the circular of 2006 regulating appointment of Anganbari Sevika, it was the District Magistrate, who was competent to hear appeal under clause 11 against the termination orders passed by the C.D.P.O. or equivalent Officer. It was amended on 25.7.2008 by empowering the District Programme 2 Officer to hear issue of termination of Anganbari Sevika against which appeal would lie before the District Magistrate. This Court finds it difficult to comprehend the nature of the order of the Commissioner. The order of termination is by the District Magistrate and Commissioner requires the District Magistrate to hear the appeal against his own order. It is not permissible in law as the original authority cannot sit as an appellate authority simultaneously. It is a completely anomalous position in law which the law does not countenance. The order of the Commissioner is completely erroneous. Directions are, therefore, issued to the District Magistrate, Gaya to forthwith forward the memo of appeal of the petitioner to the court of the Commissioner within seven days of the receipt or presentation of a copy of this order before the District Magistrate. This Court further directs the Commissioner to finally hear and decide the appeal within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of the memo of appeal before his office from the office of respondent no. 4 after notice to the petitioner. It is expected that the petitioner shall also be vigilant and shall be adequately tracking the movement of the matter so that hearing of the appeal be not delayed for reasons attributed to the petitioner. On the day that the records are placed before the Commissioner, it shall be open to the petitioner to file an application for interim direction and which this Court requires to be decided and disposed within a maximum period of seven days 3 from the date of institution of such interim application. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)