IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.4671 OF 2008 SMT.REKHA DEVI, WIFE OF SHYAM KISHORE MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASANIAWAN, POST OFFICE BASANIAWAN, POLICE STATION HARNAUT, DISTRICT NALANDA ……………………………………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NALANDA 3. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, NALANDA 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, HARNAUT, NALANDA 5. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ BASANIAWAN, PRAKHAND HARNAUT, DISTRICT NALANDA 6. ANITA KUMARI, WIFE OF RABINDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASANIAWAN, POLICE STATION HARNAUT, DISTRICT NALANDA ………………………………………………………………………….RESPONDENTS ******** FOR THE PETITIONER :- MR. NAGENDRA KUMAR SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E :- MR. SHARVESH CH. VERMA, AC TO SC 14 ******** 2 21/04/2011 The petitioner has challenged Annexure-7 on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before being dismissed from service. There is a requirement in the guidelines framed for the appointment of Aanganbari Sevikas and Sahayikas and their termination on different grounds, which envisages that the incumbent who has been appointed on the aforesaid two posts should be given an opportunity to be heard before they are terminated. In the result, the letter issued vide letter no. 354 dated 12.12.2007 which has been passed in compliance of the order of the District Magistrate, Nalanda vide letter no. 1765 dated 07.12.2007 with a 2 direction to the concerned authority i.e. the Child Development Project Officer, Harnaut and the District Magistrate, Nalanda to examine the facts and to see whether the petitioner was granted opportunity to be heard before the issuance of the order of termination. In case, the opportunity was not given a show cause notice, then the concerned authority shall issue a show cause notice to the petitioner and after hearing her, pass an appropriate order. The order impugned i.e. Annexure-7 is set aside. However, the petitioner cannot be reinstated in service until the final decision is taken in the matter. In the present case, respondent n o. 6 Anita Kumari has apparently been appointed in place of the petitioner. This Court has not issued notices to Anita Kumari as the matter is being remanded for consideration to the respondent no. 2 and 4, who will be passing appropriate orders in the matter. It would be perhaps proper to issue notice to Anita Kumari so that she may be heard in the matter. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )