Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2011 (2) dt.13-07-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.3953 of 2011 ====================================================== Renu Kumari, wife of late Anil Kumar Yadav, resident of village – Bargaon tole Patiya, P S – Hassanpur, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through District Magistrate, Samastipur. 2. Md. Idrish, Mukhiya Bargaon Gram Panchayat, P.S. Hassanpur, District – Samastipur. 3. Sushma Bhaleria Toppo, Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) Hasanpur, Samastipur. 4. Usha Kumari wife of Awadhesh Kumar, resident of village – Bargaon Tole Patiya, P S- Hasanpur, District-Samastipur. 5. Raj Kishore Rai, Panchayat Sachiv, Bargaon Gram Panchayat, P S – Hassanpur, District – Samastipur. 6. District Programme Officer, District I.C.D.S.Cell, Samastipur. 7. District Magistrate, Samastipur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prahlad Kr. Bhagat GP13 ====================================================== 2 13-07-2011 On the orders of the High Court passed in CWJC No.1603 of 2010 the District Magistrate, Samastipur adjudicated the dispute with regard to selection or appointment of Anganbari Sewika in Hasanpur Block. The District Magistrate did find irregularities or illegalities in the selection made in favour of one Usha Kumari, who is private respondent No.4. A categorical direction was issued by the District Magistrate upon Mukhiya, Panchayat Sachiv as well as the C.D.P.O. to ensure that fresh selection is carried out. The Centre in question is numbered 122. Grievance of the petitioner is that the direction of the District Magistrate passed way back on 26.8.2010 is not being carried out by the subordinate. She wants a direction for enforcement of the order of the District Magistrate. The Court fails to understand as to why the District Magistrate is Patna High Court CWJC No.3953 of 2011 (2) dt.13-07-2011 helpless in taking follow-up action if there is failure to implement the directions by the subordinate and as to why a citizen should be compelled to seek yet another direction from the High Court for implementation of an order already made in this regard. If there is failure on the part of subordinates then the District Magistrate is well empowered to act and act decisively. The writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the District Magistrate that he will take follow up action against the concerned respondents if nothing has been done in furtherance to his order dated 26.8.2010, which is the order contained in Annexure-2 to the writ application. The above observation of the Court is however based on a premise that there is no other impediment in the way of implementation of the said orders, in the sense that if this order has not been challenged before any forum and there is no stay of the order of the District Magistrate, then obviously the District Magistrate will do the needful within the shortest possible time preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. rkp/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)