The court emphasized the importance of following the guidelines issued by the State Government for the implementation of the I.C.D.S. scheme and imposed time limits for the disposal of complaints and appeals, highlighting the necessity of early resolution of such matters.

1. All these matters relates to selection of Anganbari Sewika at different centres. The allegations made by the petitioners are similar and the reliefs which have been prayed by the petitioners are also identical.

2. All these writ petitions are being disposed of in the light of the decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 460 of 2004" and analogous cases. Part of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 460 of 2004* are being incorporated in this order which will form part of the order of these writ applications.

3. The State Government for implementation of I.C.D.S. scheme has been issuing guidelines time to time. Whenever some lacuna is found in the earlier guidelines a new guideline is issued by the Welfare Department of the Government of Bihar. Guidelines issued under Memo No. 1129 dated 13.6.1998 in Memo No. 32 dated 9.9.2001 and Memo No. 427 dated 20.6.2003 are such guidelines under which procedure has been provided for selection/removal of Anganbari Sewika/Sahaika. In 1998 circular selection was to be made by the Selection Committee and its approval by the D.D.C. was necessary. In case D.D.C. fails to give approval within 15 days the Director, Welfare is authorised to give approval to the selected list d Anganbari Sewika/Sahaika. Minimum qualification for general category candidate was Matriculate and for S.C./S.T. candidates non-matriculation was the qualification. Only daughter-in-law of the concerned Ward/Tola permanently residing in that area were eligible for being selected as Anganbari Sewika/Sahaika. Unmarried/ married daughters were not eligible for selection. Priority in selection was to be given to beneficiary group of the concerned viliage/Tola. In case of similar qualification preference was to be given to widow, destitute and the beneficiary candidate. This guideline was superseded by Memo No. 32 of 2001 dated 9.9.2001. In this guideline all other criteria were similar but the power of selection was totally vested in Gram Panchayat. Approval of D.D.C. or the Director, Welfare was removed. In case of any dispute/objection relating to selection/removal or non-observance of procedure provided under the guidelines, the District Magistrate was authorised to direct the S.D.O., District Welfare Officer, and District Project Officer, for holding enquiry and submitting report. On that basis the District Magistrate was authorised to take decision. There was no provision for any appeal under 2001 guidelines. In 2003 another guidelines was issued vide letter no. 427 dated 20.5.2003 in which some of the provisions were changed. The Aam Sabha was to be called under the Chairmanship of Mukhia of only beneficiary group. Widows and destitute were required to be given preference. The beneficiary group was identified as people coming from B.P.L. group as well as coming from very poor section of the society. As per the Supreme Court direction in the year 2006 the Department of Welfare has issued another guidelines. Provision under this guideline has been made for further extending the scheme in order to reach the benefit of the scheme to each and every person belonging to weaker section of the society and to improve their conditions. Number of Anganbari centres are to be increased and a new provision has been included under Clause 8 of this guideline which provides that in case of irregularity in selection an affidavited complaint should be filed before the District Magistrate.

The District Magistrate on filing of such complaint will conduct enquiry through S.D.O., District Welfare Officer, Project Officer or any officer not below the rank of S.D.O. On receiving such report under clause 9 of the Guideline the District Magistrate will pass an order under Clause 10 of the guideline. A speaking order under Clause 10 is required to be passed after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. A new provision for appeal under Clause 11 of the Guideline has been provided. Any one aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate