Mohit Kumar Shah, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.7.2014, passed by the Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna i.e. the Respondent No. 2 herein as also for quashing the orders dated 22.7.2011, passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea and the one dated 29.2.2012, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 53/2012, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner made on the post of Anganbari Sevika has been cancelled and the same has been upheld in appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat called for a general meeting /Aam Sabha for selection of Anganbari Sevika on 22.6.2007 and a report was called for with regard to the prevailing confusion regarding the mapping of the castes, whereupon, it was found that in the village in question, Adivasis were in majority, hence directions were issued on 27.7.2007 for taking steps for preparing the merit list. The meeting of the Aam Sabha was again held on 30.7.2007 and a decision was taken to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika, whereafter letter dated 2.8.2007 was issued to the petitioner by the office of the Dharhara Panchayat, intimating her that she has been selected as Anganbari Sevika for Anganbari Centre No. 164. The petitioner was then sent for training where she successfully completed her training. While the petitioner was performing her duties as Anganbari Sevika to the satisfaction of all concerned, suddenly, in the year, 2011, the petitioner was called upon to reply to the charges levelled by one Mamta Kumari i.e. the Respondent No. 7 herein, who claimed to be having higher marks in the merit list than the petitioner, whereafter the District Magistrate, Purnea, vide letter dated 22.7.2011, issued an order, terminating the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika. The petitioner had then filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea, however, the same was also dismissed, by an order dated 29.2.2012. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the Respondent No. 2 herein, however, the same has also been rejected by the impugned order dated 31.7.2014.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no consideration whatsoever has been made by the Respondent authorities and instead, the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika has been cancelled erroneously and the appeals filed before the higher authorities have also been rejected in a mechanical manner without referring to the lis involved in the present case. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the minutes of the proceedings of the Aam Sabha dated 22.6.2007/27.7.2007 would show that the same have been endorsed by the Child Development Project Officer and since the meeting dated 30.7.2007 was in continuation thereof, the same was not required to be again endorsed by the Child Development Officer, hence, it cannot be said that the selection of the petitioner, made in the Aam Sabha held on 30.7.2007, was not valid. It is also submitted that the order dated 22.7.2011, passed by the District Magistrate, Purnea, the order dated 29.2.2012, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Purnea and the order dated 31.7.2014, passed by the Respondent No. 2, are nonest and illegal in the eyes of law, hence, are fit to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted, by referring to the counter affidavits, filed in the present case that the Aam Sabha was held on 30.7.2007, for selecting Sevika for Anganbari Centre No. 164, wherein the petitioner was selected, however, a complaint was made by the Respondent No. 7 herein, before the District Magistrate, Purnea, who heard the matter on 8.7.2011 and found that irregularities have been committed since neither the Lady Supervisor nor the Child Development Project Officer were present at the time, the