Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has prayed for quashing the order issued by Memo No. 45 dated 14th February, 2011 (Annexure 4 ), whereby the Respondent No. 6 has arbitrarily cancelled the Petitioner's appointment as Anganbari Sevika of village Konia, Panchayat Pindarkone, Block Padma, District Hazaribagh. She has also prayed for quashing the Memo No. 111 dated 9th February, 2011, whereby the Respondent No. 4 had erroneously recommended for cancellation of the Petitioner's appointment.
(2.) IT has been stated that the Petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika of village Konia, Panchayat Pindarkone, Block Padma, District Hazaribagh by Memo No. 352 dated 27th August, 2009. The said appointment was made on the basis of the decision of Aamsabha dated 27th August, 2009. The Petitioner, thereafter, had resigned on 11th September, 2009. The Aamsabha in its meeting held on 8th February, 2010 again selected the Petitioner as Anganbari Sevika for the same village. The Petitioner, thereafter, had been working as Anganbari Sevika. It has been stated that the Petitioner possesses all the eligibility and she is intermediate in arts and was most suitable candidate. She was duly appointed on the basis of the resolution of Aamsabha. After the appointment, the Petitioner has worked as Anganbari Sevika for a year, but suddenly the impugned order dated 14th February, 2011 (Annexure4) was served on her, cancelling her appointment as Anganbari Sevika of village Konia, Panchayat Pindarkone, Block Padma, District Hazaribagh. Against the said order, the Petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh as far back as on 25th February, 2011, but till date no order has been passed. The Petitioner, thereafter, filed this writ petition. Learned J.C. to Sr. S.C.II, appearing on behalf of the Respondents, submitted that the Deputy Commissioner is the appellate authority and the appeal is pending before him. The Petitioner without waiting for the result of the appeal has rushed to this Court. This writ petition is, therefore, premature and is liable to be dismissed.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, I find that against the impugned order, the Petitioner has preferred appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh, who is the appellate authority. The Deputy Commissioner is, thus, directed to dispose of the Petitioner's appeal within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.;