WP(C) 1709/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI Both Mr. A. Matin, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Khound, the learned Standing Counsel for the Bodoland Territorial Council and Mr. T. Baruah , the learned State counsel are heard at length. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality of the letter dated 21.4.2008 issued by the Respondent No.7 cancelling her engagement as Angan wadi Worker of Luchutbil AWC and the letter dated 22.4.2008 issued by the same a uthority engaging the private respondent as Anganwadi Worker by replacing the pe titioner in the post in question. What happened in this case is that the petitio ner in response to the advertisement, being eligible for the post, applied for t he post of Anganwadi Worker against the Anganwadi Centre No.221, Luchutbil R/C a nd was called for interview on 21.9.2007. On the basis of her performance in the interview, a select list containing the names of 50 candidates including the na me of the petitioner for 50 Anganwadi Centers was published by the Respondent No .7 on 30.9.2007. The name of the petitioner found a place at Sl. No. 39 of the S elect List against AWC-221. She was accordingly engaged as Anganwadi Worker at AWC-221 with a fixed honorarium of ‘1,000/- per month and joined the service on 1.10.2007. However, the Respondent No.3, in order to accommodate the private res pondent, modified the Select List and directed the concerned authority to cancel the engagement of the petitioner and in her place, to engage the Respondent No. 8 in that post. This prompted the Respondent No.7 to issue both the impugned ord ers. This Court by the order dated 7.5.2008, while issuing notice of motion, had pass ed an interim order to the effect that both the impugned orders would remain sta yed. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by virtue of the interim order, the engagement of the private respondent had been stayed a nd she has been allowed to continue in that post till now. Mr. S. Khound, the learned Standing Counsel for the BTC fairly submits that in v iew of the para-wise comments received by him on 17.9.2013 from the Joint Secret ary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar, this Court may pass appropriate or der. I have gone through the para-wise comments and on examination thereof, it is revealed that the petitioner was allowed to continue in the post in question while engagement of the private respondent should withdrawn in compliance with t he said interim order of this Court. Even a cursory look at the impugned orders will show that both the impugned orders have been issued arbitrarily without gi ving an opportunity of hearing the petitioner. It may be noted that the petition er was engaged as Anganwadi Worker after following normal procedure of recruitme nt, which undoubtedly confers upon her the right to continue in the post except by terminating her engagement in accordance with law. The respondent authority p erhaps realizing the mistake committed by it, has now rectified it, and has gra cefully withdrawn the engagement of the private respondent. This ends the matter . This writ petition, therefore, does not survive for consideration. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in her post till her engagement is terminated in accordan ce with law. No costs.