R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing order dated 1.10.2009 under Memo No. 451(annexure 3) issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar setting aside the appointment of petitioner.
(2.) MR . Prashant Pallav, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted as follows. Petitioner was selected by the Aam Sabha and then by selection committee and she was appointed as Angan Bari Sevika in Badnadih in the year 2007. Though, she is daughter in the said village, but she is residing with her husband in that village which will appear from the residential certificate dated 4.5.2006 (annexure 1) and the voter list annexed as annexure 5 series with supplementary affidavit filed on 30.11.2009. There is no bar that a married daughter residing in the village cannot be appointed as Angan Bari Sevika. Moreover, Deputy Development Commissioner has got no power to cancel the appointment of the petitioner and furthermore, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the said order. He relied on paragraph 8 of the case reported in, 2001 (1) JlJR 237 Smt. Sharda Devi v. State of Bihar and Ors., which reads as follows: Apart from the fact aforesaid, it is not in dispute that the D.D.C. Bokaro had no jurisdiction to issue order of removal, power being vested with the Selection Committee, on whose decision, the removal order can be issued by the Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), that too after notice and hearing the parties. On the other hand, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned State counsel submitted as follows. The petitioner has obtained residential certificate and affidavit of giving 3 decimal land by her father in order to circumvent the circular dated 2.6.2006 regarding appointment of Angan Bari Sevika. In view of Clause (G) & (Gha) in the letter dated 2.6.2006 issued by the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Angan Bari Sevika should be permanent resident of the village and therefore, it is provided that daughter -in -law can be appointed but not the daughter. The voter list cannot be relied for the purpose of proving that petitioner is permanent resident of the village. The impugned order has been passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner on the basis of inquiry report submitted by the C.D.P.O., Deoghar after hearing all the villagers including the petitioner and therefore, it cannot be said that in such circumstances, Deputy Development Commissioner has no power to pass impugned order. Moreover, opportunity of hearing under Clause 16 of the said circular dated 2.6.2006 is contemplated in different situation, whereas in the present case the appointment of petitioner itself is illegal.
(3.) IT appears that under Clause 16, opportunity of hearing is to be given before removing Angan Bari Sevika in different situation which is not applicable in the present case in which the allegation against the petitioner is of obtaining appointment in violation of the prescribed rules and procedures. It further appears that an inquiry was held in presence of the villagers, in which petitioner was also heard by the C.D.P.O., Deoghar who found that petitioner was wrongly appointed. Thus, the case of Smt. Sharda Devi (supra) does not help the petitioner fully. However, when she was already appointed rightly or wrongly, natural justice demands that an opportunity of hearing should have been given to her.;