IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.670 of 2008 LALITA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 02/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims to have been empanelled at Serial No.1 for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. When appointment was denied to her and she pursued the matter, the Child Development Programme Officer on 3.7.2007 referred to a verbal instruction over telephone by the District Magistrate on 28.6.2007 for initiating fresh process for selection and appointment of Angan Bari Sevika. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. It seeks to raise issues of ineligibility of the petitioner for appointment questioning her very empanelment done by the respondents themselves. In the meantime, after refusal to appoint the petitioner the respondents have appointed one Renu Kumari figuring at Serial-3 of the same very merit panel in which the petitioner figured at Serial-1. Mere empanelment may not create any right for appointment. The authorities would be well within 2 their rights to scrap the entire process and initiate fresh selection and appointment for valid reasons. Equally, if a person empanelled at Serial No.1 by the respondents initially thought fit by themselves is to be subsequently indicted on grounds of disqualification, the law mandates that he has to be heard with an opportunity to place that he had a case for appointment, more so, when an appointment is to be made from the same panel and not by fresh selection. A Government governed by the rule of law runs on written orders and not on verbal orders. These aspects of the matter are not denied in the counter affidavit. In absence of a reasoned and speaking order with regard to the petitioner, especially after she lay out a challenge against denial of the appointment notwithstanding her position at Serial-1 of the panel, makes the actions of the respondents completely arbitrary. In view of the fresh appointment made from the same panel, this writ petition is disposed with the observation that if the petitioner files an appropriate application before the District Programme Officer within 30 days from today, he is required to decide the matter in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order, disclosing full materials and particulars so that 3 judicial review of his order may be facilitated, if the need arises, after hearing all concerned, including respondent No.3 standing at Serial-3, within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/presentation of the same along with a copy of this order. The application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)