IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4928 of 2007 Neelam Kumari, wife of Jai Prakash Yadav, resident of village- Samada, P.O. Sahewan, P.S. Birpur, District Supaul … …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Supaul 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul 5. The District Welfare Officer, Supaul 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Basantpur, Supaul …. … Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :Mrs. Arpana Kumari, Advocate For the State :Mr. S.P. Parasar, A.C. to G.P.-21 02/ 17.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sewika under letter No. 358-2 dated 27.12.1997, Annexure-1. Her appointment was challenged by one Nirmala Devi. Petitioner was not allowed to join as Anganwari Sewika and enquiry was initiated. Information about the enquiry was given to the petitioner under letter No. 219 dated 3.8.1998, which was received by her husband and statement to that effect has been made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit. 2 Counsel for the petitioner is disputing such statement. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that after due enquiry, Nirmala Devi was appointed in place of the petitioner under letter, bearing Memo No. 880-2 dated 18.12.2006, Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that before cancelling her appointment, no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner by the Child Development Project Officer, Basantpur or the District Magistrate, Supaul, yet Nirmala Devi was appointed in her place under order dated 18.12.2006, Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties, I grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge order dated 18.12.2006, Annexure-H to the counter affidavit by filing appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, who should consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance 3 with law as early as possible, in any case within three months from the date of receipt of the memo of appeal in the office of the Divisional Commissioner. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)