IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6069 of 2010 1. Smt. Anju Kumari W/O Sri Prem Kumar R/O Mohalla- Katrapar Bansh Darwaza, P.O. & P.S.- Bihar Sharif, Distt.- Nalanda Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary Department Of Social Welfare, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme Directorate Of I.C.D.S., Under Department Of Social Welfare, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate Nalanda At Bihar Sharif 5. The District Programme Officer Nalanda At Bihar Sharif 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer Bihar Sharif, Nalanda 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda 8. The Block Development Officer, Bihar Sharif Sadar, Distt.- Nalanda 9. The Ward Councilor Ward No. 43, Bihar Sharif Municipal Corporation, Bihar Sharif, Nalanda 10. Smt. Shroj Devi W/O Sri Sukhdeo Choudhary R/O Mohalla- Katrapar Bansh Darwaza, P.O. & P.S. Bihar Sharif, Distt.- Nalanda ---------------------------------- 3. 13.09.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State, the respondents including private Respondent no. 10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.11.2009 of the District Programme Officer unseating her from the post of Anganwari Sevika on grounds of irregularity in the selection process. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on a Division Bench judgment reported in 2010 (2) PLJR 374 submits that the issue with regard to appointment of an Anganwari Sevika, is the exclusive domain of the District Magistrate and the powers of the District Programme Officer is confined to the issue of removal for alleged dereliction in discharge of duties only. Appeal against the former lies before the Commissioner and against the latter before the District Magistrate. The impugned order by the District Programme Officer holding the appointment to be contrary to the law is therefore completely without jurisdiction. 2 The Division Bench judgment is dated 16.2.2010 subsequent to the date of the impugned order. Any judgment of a Court of law is always prospective in its operation unless the judgment itself directs that it shall operate retrospectively. The judgment sought to be relied upon does not give any such direction. The clarification done in para 12 of the order, as urged on behalf of the petitioner, shall apply prospectively. The petitioner therefore has an alternative remedy of appeal before the District Magistrate where questions of fact with regard to the alleged irregularity in the selection process sought to be denied by the petitioner can be more effectively examined from the original records. The appointment of an agent on behalf of the principal for dissemination of a welfare scheme cannot be put at par with that of government servants to warrant interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 at this stage when alternative remedies are available. If so advised, the petitioner may pursue her remedies before the District Magistrate in appeal. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into merits of the matter which shall remain open for consideration by the appellate authority in his own wisdom but in accordance with law. If the petitioner files such an appeal within a period of 30 days from today the appellate authority is adequately expected to keep in mind that the petitioner was in fact bonafide pursuing remedies before this Court. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) 3