IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.9642 OF 2008 ROSHAN ARA, WIFE OF MD. TARIQUE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAKHDUMPUR PALI, POLICE STATION KAKO, DISTRICT JEHANABAD VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COLLECTOR, JEHANABAD 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, JEHANABAD 4. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, JEHANABAD 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, KAKO PALI, DISTRICT JEHANABAD 6. THE ANCHALADHIKARI, KAKO BLOCK, DISTRICT JEHANABAD 7. THE STATISTICAL ASSISTANT, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, KAKO BLOCK, DISTRICT JEHANABAD 8. ASWIN BANO, WIFE OF MD. ANWAR, RESIDENT OF MAKHDUMPUR, POLICE STATION KAKO, DISTRICT JEHANABAD ******** 5 17/05/2011 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Child Development Project Officer, Kako Pali, Jehanabad dated 06.02.2008, which has been passed in compliance of the order of the Director, Social Welfare Department. In this matter, no notices have been issued to the petitioner on the ground that there was an order passed in SLP No. 196 of 2001 by the Supreme Court in which it has been held that no notice is required to be issued to the delinquent Aanganbari Sevikas/Sahayikas. In the present case, the petitioner has specifically stated that she had applied for leave on 25.10.2007 as she had learnt that her father was seriously ill at Kolkata. The petitioner rejoined on 09.11.2007. In the mean time, there was an inspection made by the Inspecting Team deputed by the Directorate to inspect the Aanganbari 2 Centres. The Centre in which the petitioner works was found to be closed and therefore, an ex-parte order terminating the petitioner’s engagement as an Aanganbari Sevika has been issued. It may be noted that respondent no. 8 has been appointed as an Aanganbari Sevika in place of the petitioner. Notices have been issued to respondent no. 8 through registered post as well as through the Child Development Project Officer, but respondent no. 8 has refused to respond to the notices and has not appeared in this case before this Court. The order terminating the petitioner without hearing her is obviously against the guidelines laid down in the year 2006. Class 9 and 10 of the said guidelines specifically envisage that an opportunity of hearing must be given to the delinquent concerned. It also envisages that if the Aanganbari Sevika/Sahayika is absent for 15 days continuously, she would be liable to be suspended. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Child Development Project Officer stating that the petitioner ought to have filed her leave application before the Mukhiya. It is further submitted on behalf of the Child Development Project Officer that it is the belated explanation given by the petitioner. Prima facie, it appears from Annexure-3 that the petitioner had informed the Child Development 3 Project Officer that she would not be available as she had to leave for Kolkata in view of her father’s illness. These aspects however would have to be examined. I accordingly quash the order dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit) passed by the Director, Directorate of Integrated Child Development Scheme, Social Welfare Department and direct that the petitioner should appear before the Director, Social Welfare Department along with a copy of this order within a period of one month from today. The Director will issue notice to the Child Development Project Officer and respondent no. 8, namely, Aswin Bano by registered post as well as through the Child Development Project Officer/Mukhiya concerned, so that the matter may be disposed of within a period of four months from the date of valid service of notice. This writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )