IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13225 of 2009 BABITA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2. 13.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of her termination from the post of Anganbari Sevika. From the facts of the case, it appears that in pursuance of a complaint made by an aggrieved person who was not selected, the District Magistrate vide his order dated 4.7.2009 declined to grant relief to the complainant but held the appointment of the petitioner to be bad. The submission is that this order came to be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without hearing the petitioner and therefore the order is not sustainable. Counsel for the State points out from Anenxure-8 dated 24.7.2009 that the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Commissioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an appointment on the vacancy created by removal of the petitioner is going to be filled up very shortly. Once the petitioner has availed the remedy of an appeal before the Commissioner, the only appropriate direction to be given is that the same be disposed off expeditiously preferably within a maximum period of three 2 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Commissioner, after hearing all concerned, in accordance with law. If the vacancy created on account of removal of the petitioner is proposed to be filled up, during the pendency of the appeal, as was presently urged, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move for appropriate interim order before the Commissioner and which is required to be disposed off by the Commissioner within a maximum period of two weeks from the date of such prayer made before him so that the appeal preferred by the petitioner is not rendered infructuous by subsequent events. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid directions. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)