IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9752 of 2011 Bibi Ummati, wife of Md. Quaisar Alam, resident of village – Balser, P.O. Majgama, P S – Kasba, District – Purnea ________ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea. 4. The District Magistrate, Purnea. 5. The District Programme Officer, Purnea. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Kasba, District – Purnea. ______Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Gyanand Roy and Sheo Nandan Mishra. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, AC to SC – 17. ----- 02. 8.9.2011 Petitioner was an Anganbari Sewika of Centre No.83, in the district of Purnia. The centre is known as Aamgachhi Kushwaha centre. The CDPO, Kasba, in the district of Purnia, vide his letter No. 195 dated 12.5.2010 alleged that the petitioner was not shouldering her responsibility as an Anganbari Sewika in matter of distribution of take home ration. Petitioner was given an opportunity to explain and her explanation not being found to be in order, recommendation was made for her removal. The District Magistrate vide order dated 29.11.2010, contained in Annexure-1, accepted the recommendation for such removal. This order stood affirmed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in terms of Annexure-2 dated 27.4.2011. Both Annexure-1 and 2 are under challenge more on the technicality of law rather than on substantive or factual 2 matrix. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that Annexure-1 and 2 both need to be interfered with because both the orders have been passed beyond jurisdiction and the powers vested in the two authorities in terms of the guidelines issued by the State Government in matter relating to Anganbari Supervisors, Sewika or Sahayika. Attention of the Court has been drawn especially to 2010 guidelines issue by the State Government, which came to be notified on 14.6.2010. Clause 8.5 of the said guidelines states that in matter of allegations or complaints of illegality or irregularities committed by Sewika or Sahayika, the District Programme Officer shall hear the parties and pass a speaking order. Clause 8.6 provides for appeal before the District Magistrate within thirty days. Revisional power is vested in the Divisional Commissioner under Clause 8.7. What is being sought to be urged at the bar is that if the administrative authorities has been vested powers to exercise such matters by a set of guidelines issued by the State Government then such power cannot be assumed or exercised by that authorities contrary to the provisions. What is of significance is that the new set of guidelines of 2010 was already in place on 14.6.2010. The provision also takes note of a situation where certain matters may be pending before the District Magistrate for adjudication 3 which was to be transferred to the District Programme Officer but instead of following that procedure the District Magistrate, Purnea went ahead and decided the matter contrary to the powers vested in him. The Divisional Commissioner has also erred by affirming that order by holding that since power is vested in the District Magistrate as an appellate authority and matter was pending before him for long time, therefore, he has done no wrong by deciding the issue. When a procedure is provided for and a thing is to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in that manner or it would be not done at all. Any breach or deviation is an exception and not a rule. Since the new set of guidelines or circular was already in place on 14th June, 2010 and when the guideline itself talked about transfer of such cases, there was no occasion for the District Magistrate to proceed in the matter or for the Divisional Commissioner to justify such decision rendered by the District Magistrate in complete breach or ignorance of the provisions. No amount of justification given on behalf of the respondents can cure the illegality which has been committed by the two respondent authorities namely, the District Magistrate and the Divisional Commissioner. In the above stated circumstance, the Court is left with no option but to quash Anneuxre-1 and 2 and allow the writ application. 4 Quashing of the order, however, shall not come in the way of the competent authorities i.e. the District Programme Officer, who shall hear the parties to the dispute and decide the matter in terms of 2010 guidelines. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)