IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.3841 OF 2008 GAYANTI KUMARI, WIFE OF ASHOK KUMAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHAPURA, POLICE STATION PIPRA, DISTRICT PATNA …………..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE –CUM- COLLECTOR, DISTRICT PATNA 3. THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MASAURHI, DISTRICT PATNA 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, PUNPUN, DISTRICT PATNA 5. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT KALYANPUR, PUNPUN, DISTRICT PATNA ……………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******** 2 13/04/2011 Heard Counsel for the petitioner and State. The petitioner has challenged the order contained in memo no. 422 dated 22.01.2008 passed by the District Magistrate, Patna. The petitioner was appointed as Aanganbari Sevika in the selection that took place in the year 2007. It appears from the counter affidavit that there was a complaint against the engagement of the petitioner as Aanganbari Sevika in the village Khapaura, Panchayat Kalyanpur, block Punpun. The Sub Divisional Officer apparently has made an ex-parte enquiry behind the back of the petitioner. On the basis of the said report of the Sub Divisional Officer, the petitioner’s engagement as Aanganbari Sevika has been terminated. On perusal of the entire writ application, it is apparent that the petitioner was not issued a show cause before the order of termination was passed. The said 2 enquiry which is the basis of the termination has not been annexed in the counter affidavit and as such this Court has no way of knowing, the reasons for termination of the petitioner. The only stand taken on behalf of the State is that there is provision for filing an appeal before the Commissioner against the order of the District Magistrate. In my view, the filing of an appeal in the facts of the present case, is not an efficacious remedy. The order contained in Annexure-1 dated 22.01.2008 has to be quashed on the ground that it does not satisfy the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the process of appointment has been initiated, however no appointment has been made as yet. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that there is a recommendation in favour of one Anita Kumari. In view of the contradictory stand, I direct that the District Magistrate should issue notice to both, the petitioner and Anita Kumari, call for the records of the appointment process, examine them and thereafter pass an appropriate order. I may also refer to the objection of the petitioner stating that the said Anita Kumari who has filed an objection does not come within the mapping area of the 3 centre and as such he has no right to file such an objection. All these aspects should be considered by the District Magistrate. If no appointment letter has been issued till date, I direct that the entire procedure should be stopped till the disposal of the matter by the District Magistrate. It would be in the interest of the residents of the centre that the matter should be disposed of within a period of three months from the date of valid service of notice to Anita Kumari. The petitioner should produce a copy of this order within a period of four weeks from today before the District Magistrate along with her application stating reason why her appointment should have been upheld. This application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )