IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.863 of 2009 ***** Prabha Kumari Devi, wife of Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta, resident of Village+P.O.- Baraon, P.S.-Nokha, District-Rohtas at Sasaram. …. …. Appellant/petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Directorate of I.C.D.S, under Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. 5. The District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Nokha, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 8. The Block Development Officer, Nokha, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj North Baraon, Block+P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj North Baraon, Block+P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 11. The Panchayat Sevak, Gram Panchayat Raj North Baraon, Block+P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. 12. Anita Kumari, wife of Ravindra Kumar, resident of Village+P.O. Baraon, P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas at Sasaram. …. …. Respondents/Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey, Advocate Mr. Panchu Ram, Advocate For the State : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Government Pleader-XVII For Respondent No.12 : Mr. Tara Nath Jha, Advocate ---------- 4. 16.2.2010. We have heard Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Tara Nath Jha, learned counsel for respondent No.12. - 2 - This Court on 22.1.2010 had passed the following order: - “It is submitted by Mr. Bishnu Kant Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant the order passed by learned Single Judge is vulnerable inasmuch as that he has affirmed the order passed by the District Programme Officer dated 24th December, 2008 whereby he has passed the order of removal of the appellant from the post of Anganbari Sevika though he has no jurisdiction to do so. It is contended by him that it is the District Magistrate who has the jurisdiction. Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Tara Nath Jha, learned counsel for respondent no.12 shall come prepared to argue the matter along with the relevant Rules. Be it noted as a singular question of jurisdiction arises, matter be listed on 4th February, 2010. The case shall retain its own position.” Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 16th February, 2010 and on that date the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram was directed to depute an officer with records. In pursuance of the aforesaid order Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ojha, District Programme Officer is present. A counter affidavit has been filed by the State. A return has also been filed by the private respondent no.12. The singular issue that emanates for - 3 - consideration in this intra-court appeal, as is reflectable from our earlier order, whether the District Programme Officer could have passed the order of removal against the present appellant, who had been selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika. It is urged by Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant that as per the guidelines of 2006, namely, „Samekit Bal Vikas Seva Yojna Antargat Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika Ke Chayan Sambandhi Margdarshika, 2006‟ (for short „the Guidelines‟), the District Magistrate has the exclusive jurisdiction to interdict and interfere in the matter of appointment and the District Programme Officer has no authority to entrench upon the same. The counter affidavit filed by the State has incorporated a set of guidelines issued on 25.7.2008 by the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, stating, inter alia, that the District Programme Officer can take appropriate action for removal of Anganbari Sevika. The return filed by the private respondent no.12 has made various asseverations contending, inter alia, that the entire selection process is vulnerable in law inasmuch - 4 - as the procedural irregularities are enormous. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar it is apposite to refer to Clause 8(3) of 2006 Guidelines. The said Clause, on being translated into English, reads as under: - “8(3) If nominated Sevika/Sahayika has been sent for training OR, selection letter has been issued after training and Anganbari Centre is being run by her, in such a case the Inquiring Officer shall submit a proposal with all evidences to the District Officer for cancellation of her selection. The District Officer, after hearing duly all the parties concerned in such matters and in the light of all facts/Inquiry report, shall pass speaking order within a month. On charges being proved, the District Officer, after cancelling her nomination letter, shall intimate the Mukhiya of concerned Gram Panchayat with all facts to select a suitable person in the light of government direction/criterion. At the same time, he (D.O.) will direct the concerned Child Development Project Officer to start the process for selection under para-6 of the Guidelines. The Centre shall be operative till the completion of inquiry and action in respect of cancellation of selection.” Clauses 11 and 12 of the guidelines which have come into force in the year 2008 prescribe for duties and responsibilities of the District Programme Officer. Clauses 11 and 12, on which immense emphasis has been placed by Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the State, on being - 5 - translated into English, are reproduced below:- “11. If any type of irregularity is detected at Anganbari Centres, the same shall be enquired/after obtaining explanation from concerned Sevikas/Sahayikas, action shall be taken in respect of cancellation of selection as per requirement. 12. Appeal against the order of District Programme Officer in respect of cancellation of selection may be filed before the concerned District Officer.” It is contended by Mr. Arvind Kumar that the second guideline which have been issued by the competent authority on 25.7.2008 are to prevail inasmuch as the State Government has the authority to change the guidelines from time to time and it cannot be said that the second set of guidelines, being counter or contradictory to the first guideline, cannot be allowed to operate. There can be no iota of doubt that the guidelines can be changed, but, a pregnant one, it is to be seen whether the guidelines do operate in the same field. As is perceived, the guideline 8(3) of 2006 Guidelines relates to the selection process. That is how also the guideline has been nomenclatured. If the entire guideline is scanned, it would be clear that all the guidelines do pertain to the selection process - 6 - at various stages. There is a purpose behind it. When a selection process is interdicted or annulled or declared to be non-est, a high authority has to be endowed with the responsibility and accordingly the State Government has bestowed the authority on the District Magistrate. As far as Guideline 11 of the second set of Guidelines issued on 25.7.2008 is concerned, it exclusively relates to the duties and responsibilities of the District Programme Officer. Guideline 11 deals with the irregularities of the Anganbari Sevika at Kendra. The said officer has been authorised to take appropriate action, even to remove her. The same is subject to appeal before the District Magistrate. The District Programme Officer has not been conferred any power to intervene at any stage of selection. His role comes into play qua irregularities at the Kendra. Thus, exercise of jurisdiction is distinctly compartmentalised and there can be no shadow of doubt, what has been stated in 2006 Guidelines have nothing to do with circulars/guidelines issued for determination of duties and responsibilities of the District Programme Officer. Hence, the reliance on the said Guidelines by Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the State does not deserve acceptation. - 7 - In view of the aforesaid analysis, we have no hesitation in stating that as far as the selection process is concerned it could have been only adverted to by the District Magistrate and he alone could have passed any adverse order in that regard, but in the case at hand, the order has been passed by the District Programme Officer, who has no jurisdiction in that regard. In view of the aforesaid, we allow the appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 24th December, 2008, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, passed by the District Programme Officer. As we have set aside the orders impugned, as a fall out, the present appellant should be allowed to hold the post. We have been apprised that respondent no.12 is presently functional. Be that as it may, as the appellant has succeeded in this appeal, she has to be allowed to function and charges be handed over to her within a week hence. The District Programme Officer, who is present in the Court, is commanded to see that the charge is handed over to the present appellant. However, the District Magistrate is not debarred to proceed under Clause 8(3) of 2006 Guidelines, if - 8 - he is so advised. We may hasten to clarify we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the selection process but have only set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and that of the District Programme Officer exclusively on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. In the result, the appeal stands allowed without any order as to costs. Pawan/ (Dipak Misra, CJ) (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)