SUJOY PAUL, J. - (1.)Heard.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner and private respondent and other candidates submitted their candidature for the post of Asha Worker in the year 2009. The respondent No.7 was selected despite the fact that she was not local resident of Village Hinota, which is the requirement of Circular dated 13-08-2009 (Annexure P/1). Pursuant to directions issued by this Court in WP. No.13670/12, an enquiry was conducted and S.D.O.(Revenue) on 12-11-2013 found that the respondent No.7 is not residing in Village Hinota. Thereafter, respondent No.7 filed WP. No.1319/14, which was disposed of by directing the respondents to hear her also before passing a final order. In turn, a three member committee by report dated 25-08-2015 (Annexure P/7) opined that the respondent No.7 is a resident of Village Jamuni and, therefore, her appointment should be cancelled.
(3.)Shri Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although appointment of respondent No.7 was cancelled by order dated 28-05-2015, on the basis of same selection of 2009 she was again appointed by order dated 16-04-2016.