IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4981 of 2010 1. USHA KUMARI W/O RAMLAL MANDAL R/O MILKY, P.S.- KAHALGAON, DISTT.- BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 3. THE DISTRICT PROJECT OFFICER BHAGALPUR ----------- 2/ 15/11/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner originally questioned the order of the District Programme Officer dated 23.12.2009 removing her from the post of Angan Bari Sevika. The writ petition very fairly acknowledges that the impugned order was issued with regard to alleged dereliction in discharge of duties as an Angan Bari Sevika after issuance of a show cause notice and the cause shown by her. It is, however, submitted that the order is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is the District Magistrate alone who was competent to pass such orders. No other ground has been urged in the writ petition. A second supplementary affidavit has been filed today stating that the petitioner moved in Misc. Case No.59/09-10 before the Collector, Bhagalpur who has rejected the appeal by order dated 6.2.2010. Reliance is - 2 - placed on a Division Bench order in L.P.A. No.863/2009 that the District Programme Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the decision making process and not with the merits of the decision unless it be perverse or arbitrary. No such ground has been urged. A Division Bench of this Court in 2004 (2) P.L.J.R. 833 (Smt. Sajjan Devi & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) has held that the only safeguard available to an Angan Bari Sevika prior to termination is giving of a show cause notice and consideration of the same. The standards applicable to termination of a government servant do not apply to them. The order of the District Programme Officer dated 23.12.2009 is reasoned and considers the explanation given by the petitioner. It was not found acceptable. The petitioner has not questioned the same in the writ application on grounds of arbitrariness or perversity. The only ground is lack of jurisdiction. The issue need not detain the Court any further and it does not consider it necessary to discuss any further aspects in view of the findings of the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.863/09 that the District Magistrate alone was competent to pass any adverse order with regard to the selection process and that it was the - 3 - District Programme Officer who was competent on other aspects such as dereliction in discharge of duties, the charge against the petitioner. The writ application is dismissed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)