IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9227 of 2003 KIRAN DEVI wife of Niranjan Kumar, resident of village- Jagai, Police Station and Post- Banka, District Banka… Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director, Social Welfare Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Department, New Secretariat, Panta-1. 4. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 5. the Deputy Development Commissioner, Banka. 6. The District Welfare Officer, Patna. 7. The Child Project Development Officer, Banka. 8. Anjana Devi wife of Tuntun Yadav, resident of Banka, P. S. Banka, District- Banka. ----------- 3. 09.11.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer made in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this application is for issuance of a writ in the nature of „certiorari‟ to quash or set aside the order dated 25.6.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner, Bhagalpur vide Banka Misc. Appeal Case No. 4 of 2001-02 and further for a direction to the concerned respondents not to disturb the service of the petitioner who has been appointed in due process after dismissal of the service of the respondent no. 8 by the competent authority and the same was already confirmed by this Hon‟ble Court.” Counsel for the petitioner in respect of aforementioned prayer would press a plain and simple submission that the impugned order of the Commissioner which would have the 2 effect of terminating the service of the petitioner was passed without hearing the petitioner. In this context it has been brought to the notice of this court that one Anjana Devi, respondent no. 8 had earlier been appointed as Anganwari Sewika, but her appointment was cancelled on the ground of certain misconduct. As against the order of removal respondent no. 8 had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner but in the meantime, the petitioner was already appointed on the said post. The grievance of the petitioner therefore is that setting aside the termination order of Anjana Devi and a direction to reinstate her would amount to taking way the vested right of the petitioner and therefore when it is apparent on the face of record that the petitioner was never given any opportunity of hearing, the impugned order cannot be sustained. On the other hand counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner‟s appointment being made subject to the result of appeal of Anjana Devi, any decision taken by the Commissioner could have affected her. 3 He would also submit that though the counter affidavit has been filed, this aspect as specifically alleged in paragraph 8 of the writ petition with regard to denial of an opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice has not been specifically answered but then it is a matter of inquiry which can be looked into by the Commissioner himself. In the opinion of this court, this writ application is fit to be allowed on the solitary ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The moment, the petitioner came to be appointed in place Anjana Devi, respondent no. 8 after her termination, she had to be heard by the Commissioner even if she was not made party by the Anjana Devi in appeal. That being so, the impugned order cannot be sustained and consequently the order passed by the Commissioner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner who will now hear the petitioner as also Anjana Devi and pass a fresh order in accordance with law within a period of four 4 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.. For a period of four months, status quo as existing today shall be maintained. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)