IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.813 of 2009 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 4700/2009) Chinta Devi, wife of Sri Arbind Singh, resident of village- Sarosher, P.O.- Khudra, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas at Sasaram ….. Appellant-Petitioner Versus 01. The State of Bihar 02. Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Government of Bihar, Indira Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna 03. The collector, Rohtas at Sasaram 04. District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram 05. District Welfare Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram 06. Child Development Project Officer, Kochas, Rohtas, District- Sasaram 07. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Narwar, P.S.-Dinara, District- Rohtas at Sasaram 08. Smt. Meena Singh, Wife of Jit Narain Singh, Resident of Village- Sarosher, Panchayat Marwar, P.S.-Dinara, District- Rohtas ….. Respondents-Respondents For the Appellant:- Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Advocate For the State:- Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, AC to AAG-8 For the Respondent No.8:- Mr. Ambernath Banerjee, Advocate ---------------------------------- 04. 03.08.2011 The present L.P.A. is filed against the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4700 of 2009 quashing the order bearing Memo No. 988, dated 23.12.2008 Annexure-6 issued by the District Programme Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram. The grievance of the petitioner-appellant 2 herein was that her services as Anganwari Sewika was terminated even after a period of four years at the behest of the husband of respondent no.8, who was not selected, on the ground that the appellant has obtained IIIrd Class marks in Matriculation, where as respondent no.8 has IInd Class marks. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition. Aggrieved by the same this L.P.A. has been filed. Even though contention was sought to be raised before us with regard to the fact that the respondent no.8 was not selected at the time of appointment hence, the appellant was appointed on that post even after a period of four years her services were terminated, but prima facie, we are of the opinion that the service of the appellant was terminated at the behest of a complaint filed by husband of respondent no.8 even after a period of four years which according to us is belated one and also the husband of respondent no.8 can not be termed as aggrieved person as the complaint has not been animated from respondent no.8 if at all he is the aggrieved person by selection of the appellant herein. Under the aforesaid circumstances we are of the opinion that the complaint itself is not maintainable for the above reasons, we set aside the 3 order bearing Memo No. 988, dated 23.12.2008 contained inAnnexure-6 passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly allowed the L.P.A. It is submitted by the leaned counsel for the State that the post which has fallen vacant after termination of the appellant has to be filled up by third party. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appellant and respondent no.8 can be granted liberty to apply afresh as and when vacancy arose and their cases shall be considered in accordance with Rules without being influenced by any observation made by the learned Single Judge or by this Court. P.K. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Vikash Jain, J.)