Mina Devi vs State of Bihar and Others

Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.�Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing in support of the Letters Patent Appeal by which challenge has been made against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2489 of 2014. This Intra Court appeal was listed under the heading for orders for stay. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the State, in our view, no purpose would be served in keeping this appeal pending. Accordingly, with consent of parties, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, who was the writ petitioner, was duly selected and appointed as Anganbari Sevika. Upon recommendation of the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), pursuant to an inspection conducted by her, the District Programme Officer, after issuance of notice to the appellant, cancelled her appointment. The appeal and the revision have also been dismissed. He submits that the authorities failed to notice the provisions of Clause-10.7 of 2011 Guidelines issued by the State Government, inasmuch as it is provided that order, cancelling the appointment for any dereliction, is to be passed within 30 days. In the present case, the order was passed by the District Programme Officer after a delay of about three months and, thus, in violation of the said clause. The learned Single Judge has held that the guidelines issued by the State Government are directory in nature and not mandatory. He submits that such a finding in law is unsustainable.

Having considered the matter, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error of law or fact committed by the learned Single Judge. The writ petition is a petition for judicial review. The Court is not sitting as Appellate Court for deciding issues of facts. From the facts, it is clear that the principle of natural justice has complied with though there is delay in passing of the final order. The Guidelines of the year 2011 issued by the State Government clearly shows that these are mere guidelines for exercise of jurisdiction which can be exercised in a judicious manner. It cannot be said that they are mandatory inasmuch as if no order is passed within 30 days, the proceeding would itself lapse. There is no consequence provided in the said clause. The guidelines being directory have been substantially complied. That being so, we find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.