IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1448 of 2011 Sangita Kumari, Wife of Sri Biloj Kumar Singh, Resident of Village Mathura, Post Mathura, P.S. Bidupur, District Vaishali………………………………………………….…………….Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Tirhut Commissionary, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur. 4. The District Programme Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Bidupur Block, District Vaishali at Hajipur. 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Mathura, Block Bidupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur………………………………………………..……………Respondents ----------- 3 15.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. To cancel an engagement of an Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika on the ground of irregularities or dereliction of duty committed by her in running the Centre is one matter. Cancellation of her engagement on the ground of wrong selection resulting from irregular and illegal procedure adopted in the selection by the authorities in Aam Sabha is a different matter. In the order dated 13.06.2006 as contained in Annexure-9, the Collector 2 has noticed powers and duties of the District Programme Officer, as per Government letter no.2723 dated 25.07.2008 contained in paragraphs 11 and 12, and has referred the complaint of the private respondent to the District Programme Officer. On the matter being remanded, the District Programme Officer has held an enquiry, heard the parties and has passed order dated 19.02.2010 cancelling the engagement of the petitioner. As noticed by the Collector in the order dated 13.06.2009, paragraph 11 of the said letter dated 25.07.2008 empowers the District Programme Officer to cancel the engagement of Anganwari Sevika and Sahayika only on the ground of irregularities being committed by them in running the Centre. No paragraph of this letter dated 25.07.2008 empowers a District Programme Officer to cancel the engagement on the ground of their illegal selection on the basis of faulty selection process. In the present Guidelines which 3 has come into effect from 14.06.2010, the position has been made clear in paragraph 8, that in the matter of any complaint in respect of illegality or irregularity committed in selection process, it is only the Collector, who has power to entertain the same and hold an enquiry and pass orders for cancellation of selection after hearing the parties. In this case, the Collector has wrongly held that the said letter dated 25.07.2008 empowered the District Programme Officer to hold an enquiry in respect of any illegality or irregularity in selection process also. In the circumstances, since the complaint of private respondent was in respect of illegal selection of petitioner on the basis of illegality in the selection process, the order of the District Programme Officer dated 19.02.2010 is wholly without jurisdiction and the same is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Collector, Vaishali, who shall get an 4 enquiry held, give an opportunity of hearing to the parties and thereafter decide the matter himself in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. As a consequence of quashing of the order of the District Programme Officer, petitioner shall be restored as Anganwari Sevika if the post is still vacant. However, her restoration shall be subject to final order of the Collector. This writ application is allowed in the manner, as indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)