IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1394 of 2010 1. SUNITA DEVI W/O RAM DULAR SINGH R/O VILL.- KANDADIH, P.O.- GHUSIAN KALA, P.S.- BIKARAMGANJ, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE DIRECTOR, I.C.D.S. SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ROHTAS 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER ROHTAS AT SASARAM 5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER BIKRAMGANJ (ROHTAS) 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER BIKARAMGANJ (ROHTAS) ----------- 2/ 26/07/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State on the writ petition, as well as, I.A. No.5938/10. The I.A. application is allowed. Let the newly added respondent be implead in the cause title. The petitioner contends that she was appointed on the post of Angan Bari Sevika in the backward class category, Bikramganj Block, Gram Panchayat Ghusian Khurd on 14.12.2007. Relying upon the impugned order 19.12.2008 of the District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram, it is submitted that the petitioner was at serial No.3 of the panel. The person at serial No.1 was found ineligible. The person at serial No.2 was absent at the time of selection leading to the selection and appointment of the petitioner. There was thus no illegality in the appointment on the own showing of the respondents as no other ground of ineligibility or illegality in the appointment has been mentioned in the impugned order. It is not an issue when the merit list was violated - 2 - arbitrarily ignoring the presence of a candidate higher in the merit list. The respondents have therefore wrongly terminated the service of the petitioner to appoint Respondent-7, Indu Kumari at serial No.2 of the panel. It was next urged that in view of the Division Bench judgement of this Court in an appeal bearing L.P.A. No.863/09, the District Programme Officer was not the competent authority to test the validity of appointments which vested in the District Magistrate alone and it was only on allegations of impropriety in discharge of duties that the District Programme Officer was competent to interfere. On facts, this Court is satisfied that the impugned order dated 19.12.2008 is required to be stayed and notice issued to the newly added respondent and the matter be disposed off finally after hearing her. In that event, no useful purpose is going to be served as the writ petition shall then remain pending for considerable time before this Court as presently five year old writ applications are being heard. Therefore, this Court while disposing off this application, to adequately protect the interest of the newly added respondent also, directs the impugned order dated 19.12.2008 to be kept in abeyance when status quo as of date obtaining between the petitioner and respondent No.7 shall be - 3 - maintained. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Rohtas who shall proceed to issue notice to the newly added respondent No.7 and then hear both sides and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order on all aspects including the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner, presently noticed above within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)