IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.964 of 2010 1. SMT.RENUKA DEVI W/O BINAY KUMAR YADAV VILL.- KASWAY AHAR, P.O.- TAJPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, SOCIAL WELFARE, I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE, BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER SAMASTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR ----------- 02/ 05.07.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for the State. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. Petitioner was selected for the post of Anganwari Sevika vide Memo No. 210 dated 6.8.1997. After completing her training she was discharging duties, but she has been terminated vide order dated 3.11.2009 issued by the District Magistrate, Samastipur. The District Magistrate, Samastipur has directed Child Development Project Officer to initiate process for fresh selection of Anganwari Sevika for Anganwari Centre No. 54. Petitioner’s case is that on 30.10.2009 she could not go to the Anganwari Centre as she was suffering from diarrhea and stomach pain. On that very date the Centre was inspected by Child Development Project - 2 - Officer, Samastipur. Certificate in this regard has been issued by the doctor showing petitioner’s absence on that particular date. Without giving notice and without considering the case of the petitioner, her termination order has been passed illegally without following the specific provision under the guidelines relating to termination of any Anganwari Sevika. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State contracting the statement of the petitioner regarding her absence on 30.10.2009 and also that no notice was issued to her. In the counter affidavit specifically it is stated that the petitioner received notices issued to her. Considering her show cause and her unauthorized absence, the impugned order of termination has been passed. The petitioner has taken plea that she was suffering from stomach pain, she could not come to Centre on that particular date and in contradiction it is stated that she has made attendance in the register on that date. The statement of the petitioner regarding about prior information to the C.D.P.O. on that particular date had also found incorrect. Without going into the merit of the case, this - 3 - application is being disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner for filing appeal before the appropriate authority as provided under the guidelines. The appropriate authority will consider the claim of the petitioner considering all available materials before it and will pass necessary orders within one month from the date of filing of such application. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)