IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.9391 of 2010
1. Manju Devi W/O Ram Sewak Mukhiya R/O Vill.- Dhobiyahi, P.S.-
Laukahi, Distt.- Madhubani
2. Murti Devi W/O Ram Balak Mukhiya R/O Vill.- Dhobiyahi, P.S.-
Laukahi, Distt.- Madhubani
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary Social Welfare
Department, Bihar, Patna
2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga
3. The Director, I.C.D.S., Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani
5. The District Programme Officer, Madhubani
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Laukahi, Distt.-
Madhubani
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Jhahuri, Distt.- Madhubani
8. The Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat Raj Jhahuri Distt.-
Madhubani
-----------
5. 19.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
the State.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 4 to 6. No counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of the Commissioner, Darbhanga
Division, respondent no. 2.
It is submitted that the petitioners were
working as an Anganwari Sewika and Sahayika in
Jhahuri Panchayat Mallahi Tolla Centre No. 137. They
were terminated by the order of the District Magistrate
dated 26.10.2009 as communicated to them on
5.11.2009. The petitioners were also heard by the
District Magistrate. In C.W.J.C. No. 18074 of 2009
preferred by the petitioners, on an objection by the
State to the remedy of appeal available before the
2
Commissioner of the Division, the application was
disposed with directions to avail the alternative remedy
along with additional observation that if they seek
interim relief, the latter application was required to be
disposed off within a period of two weeks as distinct
from the disposal of the appeal itself.
It is submitted that the petitioners filed such
Appeal on 25.5.2010 numbered as 63 of 2010 and
further sought stay of process for further appointment.
The Commissioner however has not passed any orders
on the stay application even while the respondents are
proceeding ahead for fresh selection in pursuance of
an advertisement published on 19.5.2010. The
submission therefore is that the application for interim
relief cannot be rendered infructuous by refusing to
decide the same and then perhaps urge that in the
changed circumstances and fresh appointments made,
their grievance had become infructuous.
The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent
nos. 4 to 6 dealing with the assertions with regard to
the pendency of the appeal and the interim application
states that they are matters of record and need no
comment.
The writ petition was filed nearly one year
three months ago but no counter affidavit has been
3
filed by the Commissioner. Counsel for the State is
unable to assist the Court as to what has happened to
the Appeal or the application for interim relief. On
10.6.2010 this Court had passed interim orders for
two posts to be kept vacant till the disposal of the writ
application or the Appeal filed by the petitioners.
Since the Commissioner failed to assist the
Court by placing on record either that the application
for interim relief has been disposed or that the Appeal
itself has been disposed, the interim order dated
10.6.2010 is made absolute to the extent till the
Appeal is not decided, the posts on which the
petitioners were working shall be kept vacant to be
filled up in accordance with law subject to the final
order in Appeal.
It is now for the Commissioner to decide how
soon he would like to dispose the Appeal.
It shall be obligatory for the petitioners to
place this order before the Commissioner within a
maximum period of two weeks from today failing which
the writ application shall be deemed to have been
dismissed and the Commissioner shall be under no
further obligation.
The writ application stands disposed.
P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)