D. N. Patel, J. - (1.) This interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 47 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. We, therefore, condone the delay of 47 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 2263 of 2015 is allowed and disposed of. L. P.A. No. 505 of 2014
(2.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner who had preferred W.P.(S) No. 588 of 2014 which was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order, dated 1st September, 2014 and, hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner. The claim of this appellant to be continued on the post of Anganbari Sevika has not been accepted by this Court and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Annexure10 dated 21st October, 2013 and the order passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Palamau at Annexure11 dated 21st November, 2013 have been upheld.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant (original petitioner) was appointed on 9th June, 2007 as Anganbari Sevika at Village-Tukbera, District-Palamau. The said village is now bifurcated in Tukbera-01, Tukbera-02, Tukbera-03 and Tukbera-04. Tukbera-02 was reconstituted in the year 2007 on the basis of survey made in the year 2005 where Anganbari is situated, whereas, this appellant is not a resident of Tukbera-02. This is a reason for termination of her services because it is a condition precedent that Anganbari Sevika must be a resident of the village where Anganbari is situated.;