IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16048 of 2010 NEELAM KUMARI W/O SRI UMESH SAH R/O VILL.- WAJIDPUR MEYARI, P.S.- SARAIRANJAN, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE COMMISSIONER, DARBHANGA DIVISION, DARBHANGA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SAMASTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 6. THE DIRECTOR I.C.D.S. DIRECTORATE, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER SAMASTIPUR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 8. THE CIRCLE OFFICER, SARAIRANJAN, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 9. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT/PROGRAMME OFFICER SARAIRANJAN, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 10. THE MUKHIA, GRAMPANCHAYAT RAJ, WAJIDPUR MEYARI UNDER SARAIRANJAN BLOCK, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR 11. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ WAJIDPUR MEYARI UNDER SARAIRANJAN BLOCK, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR ----------- 2. 25/02/2011 By the impugned order of the Collector dated 9.11.2009, as contained in Annexure-5, the appointment of as many as eight Anganbari Sevika was cancelled on the ground of laches committed by them in performance of their duties. Admittedly, no show cause was issued to them before the said order was passed. Out of said eight persons, one Anita Devi moved this Court through C.W.J.C.No.1874 of 2010 and her writ application was allowed by order dated 5.8.2010 and impugned order in her respect was quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice that the District 2 Magistrate did not consider it necessary to hear the writ petitioner before terminating her services. Admittedly, the same ground applies in the case of the present petitioner also. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner had moved in appeal before the Commissioner and her appeal was dismissed as time barred. Since the original order of the Collector cancelling the engagement of the petitioner itself was in violation of principles of natural justice, the order of the Commissioner will not come in the way of the petitioner in challenging the original order. Since, admittedly, no notice was issued to the petitioner, following the order passed by this Court in the case of Anita Devi, impugned order is quashed in respect of the petitioner also. Respondents will be at liberty to issue notice to the petitioner, hear her and thereafter pass fresh orders as may be necessary in accordance with law. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Pradeep/ ( J. N. Singh,J.)