- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) By the order contained in Memo No. 192 dated 08.10.2013 (Annexure-8) passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Vishrampur, Palamau (Respondent No. 7), petitioner has been communicated the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau (Annexure-9) (also impugned herein) that selection of the petitioner as Aanganbari Sevika for Badhmanwa-I Aanganbari Centre, has been cancelled. Petitioner being aggrieved, has assailed both the orders at Annexures-8 & 9 respectively in the writ petition.
(3.) The factual road map necessary to adjudicate the controversy raised herein, is briefly indicated hereunder: Petitioner was selected as a Sevika by the Aam Sabha held on 20.09.1996, but the same was not approved by the competent authority. Thereafter on 23.04.1997, next Aam Sabha selected one Sharda Devi which was also cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. The said Sharda Devi being aggrieved, approached the Court of Munsif, Palamu in Title Suit No. 95/1997 in which the petitioner was also made the defendant. The suit was dismissed by judgment dated 28.08.2009 (Annexure-12 to supplementary affidavit). Petitioner thereafter pursued her claim for selection on the basis of Aam Sabha held in 1996 and an order of appointment was also issued on 30.03.2012 by the CDPO, Vishrampur, Palamau in view of the decision of District Social Welfare Officer, Palamau on 27.03.2012. Another lady Kumari Shabiya Pal being aggrieved of the appointment of the petitioner in 2012, has approached this Court in WPS No. 4563/2012. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge of this Court on 05.09.2012 (Annexure-6) directing the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to take a decision after examining the validity of the appointment of the respondent No. 6/petitioner herein and if she is found to be over aged at the time of appointment made pursuant to the Aam Sabha held in 1996, he was allowed liberty to pass appropriate order cancelling the appointment of the respondent No. 6 therein i.e. present petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau was also directed to hear the petitioner before taking any such decision. The order indicated that if the present petitioner's appointment is cancelled, de novo exercise shall be made for appointment of Aanganbari Sevika in accordance with law.;