IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ------------ Letters Patent Appeal No.1439 of 2010 ------------- Appeal against the judgment and order dated 6-5-2010 Passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C.No.12911 of 2007 ------------- 1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, I.C.D.S. Directorate, Social Welfare Department, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya 4. The District Magistrate, Gaya 5. The District Programme Officer, Gaya 6. The Children Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Wazirganj, District- Gaya........................... Appellants Versus 1. Sunita Kumari , Anganwari Sevika, wife of Shri Jitendra Kumar, R/o Village- Rasalpur, Mahugain, P.S. Wazirganj, District- Gaya 2. Smt. Sanju Kumari, wife of Sri Pramod Kumar, R/O Village- Rasalpur, Mahugain, P.S. Fatehpur Wazirganj, P.O. Tarwan, District- Gaya.................... Respondents --------------- For the appellants : -Mr. A.C. to G.P.3 For Respondent :- Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh,Advocate With Mr. Amit Kr. Mishra,Advocate -------------- f8 15-12-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. By the order under appeal dated 6th May, 2010, the writ court granted relief to the writ petitioner by setting aside an order dated 24-8-2007 by which she was 2 removed from the post of Anganwari Sewika on the ground that the impugned action was taken in violation of principle of natural justice. It is not in dispute that respondent no.7 of the writ case challenged the order under appeal through L.P.A. No. 1077 of 2010 which was dismissed on 17th September, 2010. However, the Division Bench clarified that this appeal preferred by the State against part of the order of writ court whereby Clause 3 “ Anga “ of guidelines governing selection and working of Angan Bari Sewika was declared ultra virus, would not be affected by dismissal of L.P.A. 1077 of 2010. While hearing this appeal, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the relevant Clause 3 “ Anga “ was subsequently amended by introducing different clauses such as Clause 4.6. It is also admitted that further amendments have been made in the guidelines which have been described as guidelines of 2011. The comparable provisions are in Clause 4.8 and 4.9 of the guidelines of 2011 but they are entirely in different words and carry somewhat different meaning. Learned counsel for the parties do not dispute 3 the aforesaid changes in guidelines and hence this matter, which is involved only with the legality of Clause 3 “Anga” of the old guidelines of 2006, has evidently become infructuous. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous. Learned counsel for the appellants sought for a clarification that the order of the writ court shall not affect the decision taken prior to the judgment and order under appeal. That issue has already been clarified by the writ court in paragraph-21 of the judgment under appeal. In fact, in paragraph-20 the writ court has directed the Secretary, Welfare Department to consider the matter afresh if the ban is imposed or a qualification is prescribed which is reasonable and within the ambit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we are not required to make any further clarification. It is made clear that we have not considered the virus of provisions in the new guidelines of 2010-11 as those issues were not before the writ court. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J) 4