R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THE case appears to be that the petitioner on the recommendation made by Aam Sabha, was appointed on 24.9.2007 as Anganwari (sic) at village Sikatiya. While the petitioner was discharging her duties satisfactorily, a complaint was made that the petitioner is not the resident of village Sikatiya, upon which enquiry has made wherein allegation was found to be true and, therefore, the respondents without giving any opportunity to have her say in the matter, terminated the services of the petitioner, vide order dated 15.3.2008 which order was challenged before this Court and this Court, after finding that the said order is a non -speaking order and has been passed, without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, set aside the order and directed the respondents to take action in accordance with law. Thereafter the petitioner again put forth her claim before the respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and the respondent No. 2 got the matter relating to the residence of the petitioner enquired by a committee consisting of Sub -divisional Officer, Deoghar and others. The committee after making enquiry did find that the petitioner basically is the resident of Chulhia, though her husband got the share of the land situated at village Sikatiya where one temporary room has been constructed for temporary stay. On the basis of said report, Deputy Commissioner , Deoghar rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 23.3.2010 which has been challenged to be bad. 2. Mr. Sinha, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's husband is the resident of village Sikatiya where he has got landed property which fact has also been noted by the enquiry officer, still claim of the petitioner a daughter -in -law of the resident of village Sikatiya, has been rejected and as such that order being illegal is fit to be set aside. 3. From the perusal of the record, it gets transpired that the petitioner is basically a resident of village Chulhia though a temporary room for temporary stay has been constructed at village Sikatiya. That apart, enquiry report discloses that name of the petitioner had never been recommended for her appointment, rather the then Child Development Officer had illegally made recommendation for her appointment and on that basis, she was appointed. When the report was submitted before the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner after taking note of the fact that the petitioner is not a permanent resident of village Sikatiya and that she got her name recommended by the then Child Development Officer without there being any recommendation of the Aam Sabha rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide its order dated 23.3.2010 which order in the facts and circumstances of the case, appears to be quite justified. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Hence, it is dismissed.;