IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17598 of 2009 1. JYOTI KUMARI W/O SRI MANISH KUMAR SAH, R/O WARD NO. 5, DAKHI GHAT, P.O AND P.S AND DISTT- SUPAUL , APPLICANT FOR THE THE POST OF ANGANBARI SEVIKA IN CENTRE NO. 302 OF WARD NO. 5, DAKHI GHAT, P.O, P.S AND DISTT- SUPAUL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER, KOSHI DIVISON, SAHARSA 4. THE DISTRICT OFFICER-CUM=-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM- DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SUPAUL 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, SUPAUL 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL WELFARE OFFICER, SUPAUL 7. THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE SUPAUL 8. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, SUPAUL 9. THE EXCUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PARISHAD, SUPAUL 10. MANISHA VERMA W/O SRI SUBHASH LAL DAS, R/O WARD NO. 5, DAKHI GHAT, P.O , P.S AND DISTT- SUPAUL 11. SHRI GANGA PRASAD S/O SHRI DEO NARAIN MANDAL, R/O WARD NO.-27, P.O, P.S AND DISTT- SUPAUL ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Upendra Yadav, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. ------------ 2. 24.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Respondent no. 10 was selected for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika. On a challenge made by the petitioner, the appointment of respondent no. 10 was set aside on 27.2.2009 by the District Magistrate, Supaul when respondent no. 10 preferred Appeal No. 14 of 2009 before the Commissioner. The submission on behalf of the 2 petitioner is that the order of the District Magistrate was based on an enquiry report dated 3.1.2008, which has not been considered and it is specifically asserted in Paragraph-19 that the appellate forum, i.e. the Commissioner did not notice or hear the petitioner. This Court could have stayed the operation of the order of the Commissioner and issued notice to respondent no. 10. and required the State to file a counter affidavit also. The matter would then come up for hearing years later, when this Court is today hearing writ petitions of the year 2003-04. Reading together the pleadings in Paragraph-19 and the recitals in the order of the Commissioner dated 12.10.2009, prima facie it appears that the petitioner has not been heard. This Court, therefore, remands the matter to the Court of the Commissioner directing that the order dated 12.10.2009 shall only be kept in abeyance when the Commissioner shall issue fresh notice to the petitioner, respondent no. 10 and other concerned and then pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, within a maximum period of two months from 3 the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. If the Commissioner opines that from the records of the Appeal No. 14 of 2009, it was apparent that notices had been issued to the petitioner, served and the petitioner opted not to appear, the Commissioner shall be at liberty to finally dispose off matters in light of the same only when the impugned order dated 12.10.2009 shall merge in such fresh final appropriate order to be passed by the Commissioner as the case may be. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)