IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6203 of 2009 SUNAINA KUMARI wife of Ranjeet Kumar Mandal, resident of Village Marsanda, P.S. Kursela, District Katihar. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Secretary, Social Welfare, Department Government of Bihar Patna. 3.The Director, Social Welfare Department Government of Bihar Patna. 4.The Commissioner, Purnea Division Purnea. 5.The District Magistrate, Katihar. 6.The District Welfare Officer, Katihar. 7. The Child Development Project Officer Sameli Block, District Katihar. 8. Sweta Kumari wife of Mithilesh Kumar Mandal, resident of Village Marsadda, P.S. Kursela, District Katihar. ----------- 2 18/5/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. It is rather shocking for this Court to note that the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order dated 15.10.2008 has recorded that no power is vested in him (Divisional Commissioner) to hear the appeal against the order of Collector in relation to the service conditions of the post of Angan Bari Sevika. The attention of the Divisional Commissioner seems to have been not drawn by any one that the State Government while laying down detailed procedure for selection, appointment and other service conditions of Angan Bari Sevika had categorized in paragraph nos. 10 and 11 thereof had categorically made such provisions, which reads as follows:- 10-lsfodk@lgkf;dk dks p;u eqDr djuk- mijksDr dafMdk 8 ,oa 9 ds lanHkZ esa lsfodk@lgkf;dk dks p;u eqDr djus laca/kh izLrko ij ftyk inkf/kdkjh leh{kksijkUr lacaf/kr lsfodk@lgkf;dk dks viuk i{k j[kus ekSdk nsus ds Ik’pkr eqDr djus laca/kh eq[kj vkns” fuxZr djsaxsa A 11-p;u eqfDr ds fo:) vihyh; ”fDr- 2 d&ftyk inkf/kdkjh }kjk dafMdk 10 ds rgr p;u eqDr laca/kh ikfjr vkns” ds fof/k laca) i{k ,d ekg ds vUnj ize.Myh; vk;qDr ds le{k vihy dj ldrs gS A [k&dafMdk 8]9 ,oa 10 ds laca/k esa vk;qDr ,oa lfpo@lfpo] lekt dY;k.k foHkkx funs”d] vkbZ+0 lh0 Mh0 ,l0 dks lsfodk@lgkf;dk dks lE;d tkapksijkUr p;ueqDr dj funsZ” ftyk inkf/kdkjh dks nsus dh ”fDr iznRr gksxh A “ In presence of the aforesaid Government guidelines as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ application the impugned order passed by the Divisional Commissioner must be held to be bad both on facts and in law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.10.2008 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner of Purnea Division, who must decide Misc. Appeal No. 10 of 2008-09 after hearing the petitioner and Sweta Kumari, respondent no.8, especially when the petitioner has a grievance of being side lined despite having better marks than the respondent no.8. It will be also open for the petitioner to seek any interim protection before the appellate authority. The application stands finally disposed of with the aforementioned directions/observations. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)