IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7751 of 2011 Sudha Kumari WIFE OF RAJESH RANJAN RESIDENT OF KAMTA, P.S. HILSA DISTRICT NALANDA. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, INTEGRATED CHILD DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, BIHR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA. 5. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, NALANDA. 6. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, NALANDA. 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA. 8. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HILSA, NALANDA. 9. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, HILSA, NALANDA. 10. THE GRAM PANCHAYAT KAMTA BLOCK HILSA, DISTRICT NALANDA. 11. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT, KAMTA, BLOCK HILSA, NALANDA. 12. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, KAMTA, BLOCK HILSA, NALANDA. 13. SWETA KUMARI WIFE OF SUDAMA PASWAN, RESIDENT OF KAMTA, P.S. HILSA, NALANDA. ---------------------------------- 2 17/08/2011 Annexure-7 dated 15.02.2010 is the order passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda. This decision came to be rendered by the District Magistrate in light of the earlier direction passed by the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 16625 of 2004 decided on 30.10.2007. Origin of the dispute related to selection made on the post of Angan - 2 - Bari Sevika. Petitioner was the complainant or the person aggrieved by the selection of one Sweta Kumari (respondent no. 13). There is a detailed finding with regard to the allegation made and the explanation offered by the selected candidate but the District Magistrate found the entire process of selection to be vitiated which has not only led to annulment of the selection but institution of criminal cases against all those persons who had been found guilty of misconduct. Petitioner is basically aggrieved by the operative portion of the direction given by the District Magistrate that a fresh exercise for selection on the post of Angan Bari Sevika will be carried out in terms of the earlier guidelines issued in the year 2006. His contention is that such a decision or direction creates impediments with the right or claim of the present petitioner in participation or re-selection if she stood a chance at all. At the outset whatever be the submission made on behalf of the petitioner or the decision which he would like to rely on, which includes the cases of N. T. Bevinkitti Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C., 1233 and Gopal Krishna - 3 - Rath Vs. M.A. A. BAIG and others reported in (1991)1 S.C.C., 544, the Court after going through the two decisions have reservation in the applicability of the decisions rendered by the Apex Court in the given facts and circumstances of those cases for the reasons that even though the selection process or the selection itself was initiated in the year 2004 but by the time the issue came to be decided the guidelines itself had undergone a change. Amendments have been brought about to the guidelines which have been duly notified between the year 2006 and 2010 and the earlier rules or guidelines also stand repealed by the subsequent notification. Stand of the State by way of clarification is that when the order was passed by the District Magistrate on 15.02.2010, it was 2006 guidelines which was in operation. Therefore, the order has to be read in light of the subsequent amendment which has come into play. If that be so, then the District Magistrate to that extent has committed an error by giving a direction to conduct a fresh exercise on the basis of 2006 guidelines. Any selection which is required to be made now will have to be carried out on the basis of the law in existence - 4 - on the date when such selection process will have to be initiated and completed. If the earlier guidelines are no longer in existence and stood repealed and new amendments have come, latest of them being in 2010, to that extent the direction of the District Magistrate is quashed but with a clarification that any process of selection will have to be carried out in accordance with the recent guidelines issued or any further amendments which are brought about before the selection is made on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. No other interpretation is permissible in this regard by any stretch of legal imagination. This writ application stands disposed of with the observation aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)