IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1846 of 2009 CHANDRIKA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2 6/2/2009 Heard counsel for the parties. Services of the petitioner, who was working as ANGANWARI SEWIKA, has been dispensed with by serving an order of termination dated 5.2.2008 (Annexure-1) on the ground that in course of conducting inspection on 11.1.2008 by the District Welfare Officer, Supaul the school of the petitioner was found to be closed and ration was also not distributed. Counsel for the petitioner submits that to that extent submission has also been made in paragraph 14 of the writ application asserting that before passing of the impugned order dated 5.2.2008 the petitioner was not given any show cause notice. Counsel has also invited attention of this Court towards the representation filed by the petitioner to the Collector of the District, but that has also given no response. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, while seeking time for taking 2 instruction and filing counter affidavit has submitted that as a matter of fact the job of ANGANBARI SEVIKA cannot be said to be a Government employment in the true sense and therefore Article 311 of the Constitution will not be applicable. He, therefore, submits that if the petitioner was removed from service without show cause notice she cannot claim protection alike a Government servant. This Court, upon considering the aforementioned submissions, would find that there is no dispute that by order dated 5.2.2008 the services of the petitioner were dispensed with without any show cause notice and it is also not in doubt that the petitioner was appointed on a post which may not be a post of government servant, but none-the-less the schemes are managed by the Government. In that view of the matter, if the petitioner’s appointment was sought to be terminated on any ground the minimum requirement of principles of natural justice had to be followed and she had to be informed of the reasons for her being 3 removed from service. That having been not done, this Court instead of waiting for filing counter affidavit, would find it expedient in the ends of justice to quash the order of termination dated 5.2.2008 as contained in Annexure-1 and remit the matter back to the Collector of the district, who now will consider the explanation of the petitioner with regard to her alleged absence on 11.1.2008. In order to expedite the matter, the petitioner is directed to file a comprehensive representation to the Collector of the district within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and the Collector would dispose of the representation of the petitioner in the next three months by passing a speaking order. It is, however, made clear that upon quashing of aforesaid the order of termination of the petitioner will not be deemed to have been reinstated in service till the Collector takes a final decision 4 as indicated above. With the aforementioned direction and observation this application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Abhay Kumar