IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.7065 of 2010
1. Dhanmuni Devi W/O Ashok Ram R/O Village & P.O.- Jigna, P.S.-
Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Secretary Department Of Social Welfare, Government Of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Director Integrated Child Development Scheme, Director Of
Icds Under Department Of Social Welfare, Government Of Bihar,
Patna
4. The District Magistrate Rohtas At Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas
5. District Programme Officer, Rohtas At Sasaram
6. The Sub-Divisional Officer Rohtas At Sasaram
7. The Child Development Project Officer Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas At
Sasaram
8. The Block Development Officer Block-Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas
9. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat- Jamraur Block- Dinara, Distt.-
Rohtas At Sasaram
10. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat- Jamraur, Block-
Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas At Sasaram
11. The Panchayat Sevak, Gram Panchayat-Jamraur Block-
Dinara, Distt.- Rohtas At Sasaram
12. Asha Devi W/O Munna Ram R/O Vill.- Jigna, P.S.- Dinara,
Distt.- Rohtas
-----------
For the Petitioner:- Mr. Vivekanand Kumar, Adv.
For the State:- Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Adv.
For the Respondent no. 12 :- Mr. Ranvijay Narain Singh, Adv.
Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Adv.
———-
3. 22.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
the State and for respondent no. 12.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order
dated 24.11.2009 unseating her from the post of
Anganwari Sewika on account of irregularities in
the selection process and directing fresh selection.
The challenge is also to the subsequent
communication dated 1.12.2009.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
2
submits that the notice for selection was duly
circulated in the village from 5.6.2008 to
15.6.2008. He relies on an extract of the notice
from the register stated to have been signed by
approximately 60 villagers. It is next submitted
that the impugned order is ex parte in nature. The
petitioner has already joined in pursuance of the
selection and working. Had she been noticed and
given an opportunity for defence she could have
demonstrated that the notice was duly published
before selection as no other illegality in the
selection or her ineligibility has been alleged.
Reliance is also placed on an order of this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 2255 of 2010 that removal of an
Anganwari Sewika in violation of principles of
natural justice was unsustainable without
furthermore. It is next submitted that a Division
Bench of this Court on 16.2.2010 held that issues
with regard to appointment of an Anganwari
Sewika as distinct from dereliction in discharge of
duties are the exclusive domain of the District
Magistrate. Therefore the District Programme
Officer had no jurisdiction to terminate the
petitioner.
Counsel for the respondents have
3
supported the impugned orders.
This Court in more than one case has
held that the judgment of the Division Bench in
2010 (2) PLJR 374 (Prabha Kumari Devi Vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors.) was delivered on 16.2.2010.
It has to be understood as operative prospectively
in absence of any directions contained to give effect
to it retrospectively.
If what the petitioner contends be correct,
there shall be no limit to reopening of selections
and appointment and/or terminations which
attained finality much before 16.2.2010 creating
absolute turmoil. No order of a Court of law can be
interpreted in such manner. The petitioner was
terminated on 24.11.2009 before the order of the
Division Bench.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is right
in his submission that if the order is in violation of
the principles of natural justice it is a nullity. But
it is equally settled law that if interference with an
order shall result in the revival of another illegal
order, the Court may decline interference. It must
be kept in mind that the respondents have only
directed a fresh selection when all including the
petitioner and private respondent have to be
4
considered again.
Such interpretation of the law must be
avoided as held in (1999) 8 SCC 16 (Maharaja
Chintamani Saran Nath Shahdeo Vs. State of
Bihar) held at Pargraph-38 as follows:-
“38. For what has been
stated above we hold that the order
of the learned Member of Board of
Revenue directing action to be taken
for refund of the excess
compensation was valid and proper
though he has no jurisdiction to pass
the order. In the event it is set aside
it would amount to reviving an
invalid order of payment of excess
compensation to the appellant.”
The petitioner contends in her pleadings at
Paragraph-6 that a general notice was circulated in
the village. The guidelines under Clause 6(iii)
provide that the District Magistrate is required to
publish an advertisement in the newspaper. The
notice for the Aam Sabha is required to be
published in the Gram Panchayat Office, the
proposed Anganwari Centre, the Project Office, the
Block Office and additionally is required to be
published by the beat of drum/loudspeaker in the
area concerned. There is no pleading on behalf of
the petitioner that these procedures were followed.
The Court therefore finds it difficult to interfere
with the impugned order.
5
The Court therefore does not consider it
necessary to go into the allegations of alleged
ineligibility of respondent no. 12 as the issue is
premature.
The writ application is dismissed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)