IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1888 of 2010 1. SUMAN DEVI W/O SRI ASHOK SINGH R/O VILL- KHAIRA, P.S. TARAPUR, DISTT. MUNGER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MUNGER 3. DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER MUNGER 4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (C.D.P.O.) TARAPUR, P.O. & P.S. TARAPUR, DISTT. MUNGER 5. PANCHAYAT SEVAK GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KHAIRA, P.S. TARAPUR, DISTT. MUNGER 6. MUKHIA GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ KHAIRA, P.S. TARAPUR, DISTT. MUNGER 7. KALABATI DEVI W/O SRI SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH R/O VILL- BEGUMPUR, P.O. MUZAFFARGANJ, P.S. HAVELI KHARAGPUR, DISTT. MUNGER ----------- 2. 6.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In view of the nature of the order to be passed, this Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to respondent no. 7 at this stage since her interest are sought to be adequately protected in the order. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.12.2009 of the District Magistrate and the consequent order dated 19.12.2009 of the C.D.P.O. Tarapur, District- Munger terminating the service of the petitioner as an Anganwari Sewika at Khaira Centre No. 27. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed at the Aam Sabha held on 25.6.2009 and appointment letter issued on 27.6.2009. The petitioner joined, completed training, and started 2 discharging duties. Earlier respondent no. 7 aggrieved by her non- selection preferred a Misc. Case No. 7 of 2009-10 before the Collector. The petitioner was not impleaded as a party respondent in that application and the Collector adjudicated the claim of respondent no. 7 by the impugned order to unseat the petitioner without hearing her and even bothering to find out from the official records if the post was vacant or not. Having upheld the claim respondent no. 7, the impugned order has been passed unseating the petitioner. Counsel for the State submitted that the order of the Collector has not been even brought on record and it is not known on what materials and on what ground the finding has been arrived at in favour of the respondent no. 7. At this stage, this Court is not concerned with the merits of the matter but only with procedures. Whether the petitioner may have a defence or may not have a defence, whether the defence may be acceptable or not, are issues not relevant at this stage. An order adverse to a person, especially where the selection was done and she was discharging duties, cannot be passed without an opportunity to show cause being given to such person. The termination in a manner contrary to law without compliance of principle of natural justice is a nullity and is like a still born child 3 which never comes into existence. From the documents annexed by the petitioner and the pleadings it appears that she has not been heard or noticed before the Miscellaneous case No. 7 of 2009-10 was allowed in favour of the respondent no. 7. This application is disposed with direction to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the District Magistrate along with a copy of the present order raising the aforesaid grievance. The District Magistrate is directed issue notice to all concerned including respondent no. 7. He is required to decide as a preliminary issue whether the petitioner was a party respondent and was heard before the impugned orders dated 1.12.2009 and the consequential order dated 19.12.2009 were passed. This shall be the preliminary issue to be decided by the District Magistrate. If he is satisfied that the petitioner was a party respondent adequately noticed or heard, he may proceed to adjudicate the matter between the petitioner and the respondent no. 7. If he concludes on the preliminary issue that the petitioner was not a party respondent and was not heard in the Miscellaneous case, he is obliged to reinstate the petitioner without further more being done by him. After the petitioner is reinstated the District Magistrate, if so advised, may proceed afresh in accordance with law. Let this exercise be carried out by the District 4 Magistrate within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before the Collector. This order is subject to the condition that there is no other separate order of termination of the petitioner unconnected with the present issue. The application stands allowed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)