Nitu Singh, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.344 of 2022 ====================================================== Nitu Singh, Wife of Hirday Kumar, resident of Village-Asni, Sahdev Khap, Police Station-Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, District-Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate/Collector, Gaya.

3.

The District Programme Officer, Gaya.

4.

The Child Development Project Officer, Bodh Gaya, Gaya. 5.

The Block Development Officer, Bodh Gaya, Gaya. 6.

Smt. Rekha Kumari, Wife of Randhir Kr. Yadav, Resident of Village-Asni Panchayat Mora Mardana, Block-Bodh Gaya, Police Station-Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, Gaya.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Dharmesh Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Md. Raisul Haque, SC-10 For Respondent No.6 :

Mr. Siyaram Shahi, Advocate Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-09-2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the private Respondent No.6, as well as learned counsel for the State.

2. The order of the District Programme Officer has been assailed before, and decided by the District Magistrate by impugned order dated 10.08.2021.

2/4

3. The court finds that the order is without jurisdiction as after coming into force of the Guidelines for Selection of Aanganwadi Sevika/Sahayika, 2019 (hereinafter referred as "2019 Guidelines"), the Divisional Commissioner was the competent authority for hearing matters arising out of orders passed by the District Programme Officer.

4. Mr. Siyaram Shahi, learned counsel appearing for the private Respondent No.06, submits that that the selection process was carried on under the Guidelines for Selection of Aanganwadi Sevika/Sahayika, 2016 (hereinafter referred as "2016 Guidelines"). In view of the letter dated 27.05.2019 bringing into force the 2019 Guidelines, he submits that since the process had been initiated under the 2016 Guidelines, the District Magistrate was the competent authority.

5. To appreciate the said submission, the court would consider the letter dated 27.05.2019, which reads as follows:- "उपर्युक्त वविषर कक संबसंध में कहनना ह वक समकवकत बनाल वविकनास सकविनाए असंतर्युत वबहनार रनाज्र कक गनाममीण एविसं शहरमी पवररयोजननाओसं में आएरनबनाडमी सकवविकना/सहनावरकना चरन हकतर पूविर्यु में वनर्युत मनार्युदवशर्युकना 2015 (शहरमी) एविसं 2016 (गनाममीण) कयो वविलयोवपत करतक हरए नई मनार्युदवशर्युकना-2019 अवधसपूवचत कमी जनातमी ह, वजसकमी प्रवत पत्र कक सनाथ संलग्न कमी जना रहमी ह। उक्त मनार्युदवशर्युकना पूविर्यु वविजनावपत ककन्दद्रों कयो छयोडकर वनर्युत हयोनक कमी वतवथ सक प्रभनाविमी हयोरमी, वजसकक अनररूप वबहनार रनाज्र कक

3/4 गनाममीण एविसं शहरमी पवररयोजननाओसं में आएरनबनाडमी सकवविकना/सहनावरकना कक चरन कमी कनार्युविनाई करनक कमी ककपना कमी जनार।"

6. On going through the same, the court finds that the 2019 Guidelines have been issued by the Directorate of ICDS, which came into force with effect from issuance of the letter dated 27.05.2019, which clearly stipulates that the earlier guidelines stand repealed.

7. Mr. Siyaram Shahi, however, places reliance and emphasis on the second paragraph of the letter, which has been extracted above.

8. This court finds that the second paragraph only saves the process of selection which has been initiated under the earlier guidelines, so that the same may continue. Insofar as other aspects is clear that the earlier guidelines have been rep ealed as per letter dated 27.05.2019. Therefore, this Court finds that the remedies as per Clause 12 of the 2019 guidelines shall apply, wherein the Divisional Commissioner is the Appellate/Revisional Authority against the order of the District Programme Officer.

9. The court, therefore, finds that the order of the District Magistrate dated 10.08.2021 is without jurisdiction and the same is quashed.

10.The petitioner may approach the Divisional Commissioner by filing appeal afresh before the Divisional

4/4 Commissioner. If he does so within four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, the issue of delay shall not be raised against the petitioner's appeal. 11.Writ application is allowed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) shashank/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 03.10.2023 Transmission Date NA