REKHA KUMARI (SEVIKA), WIFE OF KAMALDEO PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SECRETARIAT, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Banwari Sharma for the two private contesting respondents and Sri T.N. Matin, learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner.

(2.) The facts are not in dispute. The two private respondents in this review petition had been selected as Anganwari Sevika and Anganwari Sahaika respectively. After their selection there was an inspection conducted at their centres and certain alleged derelictions were found. Matter was reported to the District Programme Officer. He considered this serious matter for taking action. Accordingly, he issued notice to them. After hearing them he passed orders for cancellation of their engagement as Anganwari Sevika and Anganwari Sahaika respectively. This having been done, a writ petition was filed by both of them. Before the writ Court, it appears they urged that the District Programme Officer had no jurisdiction to cancel their engagement. This was negatived and the writ petition was dismissed. They filed the Letters Patent Appeal, in respect of which the present review application has been filed. The Letters Patent Appeal was allowed holding that the jurisdiction to cancel the engagement was that of the Collector and not the District Programme Officer. The review petitioner was respondent no. 9 in the Letters Patent Appeal having been appointed as Anganwari Sevika on the vacancy caused by removal of the original writ petitioner. The Division Bench in the intra-court appeal accepted the plea and allowed the Letters Patent Appeal setting aside not only the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition but also the order of the District Programme Officer cancelling the engagement of the two writ petitioners.

(3.) By this review petition, respondent no. 9 to the Letters Patent Appeal, submits that there was an error apparent on the face of the record, inasmuch as, in the Letters Patent Appeal itself the circular of the Government as well as earlier Division Bench judgment on the issue was annexed. The earlier Division Bench judgment dated 16.02.2010, passed in L.P.A. No. 863 of 2009 (Prabha Kumari Devi Vs. The State of Bihar and others) clearly stated that the jurisdiction of the Collector and District Programme Officer was different. The said judgment pointed out that so far as complaints with regard to selection process is concerned, the complaints lay to the Collector of the District, who had the jurisdiction to look into irregularities in selection and appointment process, but when it came to functioning of the centres after selection the jurisdiction was of the District Programme Officer. If this be so, then the Letters Patent Court did not refer to the said circular and this lead to the mistaken judgment. It is clearly an error apparent on the face of the record.