- (1.) In the accompanied writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 2.07.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar pertaining to termination of services on the post of lady Supervisor and for directions upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of lady Supervisor in terms of the contract and pay the salary accordingly.
(2.) In pursuant to the advertisement published by the office of Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar 30 seats were meant for the post of lady supervisor. The appointment was carried out by the appointment committee and any decision regarding termination was also to be done by the appointment committee. In pursuance to the said selection, the petitioner was appointed on contractual basis to the post of lady supervisor and the contract was signed between the petitioner and the District Programme Officer and terms and conditions were also enshrined in the contract and the contract was for a period of one year and that was the subject to extension on the basis of performance. It was also stated that if the service of the petitioner will not be satisfactory she may be terminated. However, if there is any violation of terms and conditions an appeal could be filed before the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner continued to discharge her duty to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities. She was also given three extensions but to the utter surprise and consternation the petitioner received a show cause notice from the office of Deputy Commissioner on 28.05.2009. In pursuance to the said show cause the petitioner submitted her defence. But the Deputy Commissioner did not take into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner and passed a cryptic order dated 02.07.2009 terminating the service of the petitioner. On 25.07.2009 the petitioner filed a review application before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination dated 02.07.2009, the petitioner having been left with no other efficacious, alternative remedy has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.
(3.) Per contra a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 2 to 4 controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter-affidavit it has been submitted that as per the agreement clause if the 2nd party is found negligent in discharging her duty in accordance with the Govt. Circular, in such a case the contract as aforesaid will be come to an end. The petitioner has committed gross negligence in discharging her duty properly which fact has been detected during inspection by the respondent No. 2 and apparently the petitioner has committed such negligence who neither verified the official register of Anganbari Centre Tilouna nor ensured that Poshahar is fairly distributed among the beneficiaries of the Anganbari Centre. Even during the course of said irregularities in the official register detected and on verification it transpired that some of the villagers complained that they were not provided Poshahar and even the signatures of the beneficiaries were not found placed in the official register which suggest that actually no verification was made by the writ petitioner at any point of time. The petitioner has never reported such irregularities of Anganbari Centre of Tilauna to any of the authorities which factum clearly proves the mala fide move of the petitioner which is apparently the active connivance and collusion with the Anganbari Sevika. The Govt. money has been misappropriated and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim her reinstatement on the said post in any view of the matter. As per the terms of the contract dated 27.12.2005 vide Clause 11 wherein it is specifically agreed that in case of violation of any term embodied vide Clause Nos. 1 to 10 above the order passed by the respondent No. 2 will be binding effect on the petitioner. Since the petitioner has violated the terms of contract vide Clause No. 10 and in such case the petitioner's claim is absolutely not tenable.;