Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order of Deputy Commissioner, Koderma dated 08.05.2012 passed in favour of respondent no.5 without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the decision of the District Social Welfare Officer, Koderma (respondent no.3) contained in letter dated 24.07.2012 and directing the Child Development Project Officer, Satgawan, Koderma not to issue appointment letter to respondent no.5 and further the petitioner has prayed to hold and declare that the petitioner has been validly appointed by memo dated 26.10.2004 issued by Child Development Project Officer, Satgawan (respondent no.4) and the appointment of the petitioner has not been terminated and therefore, the respondent no.5 cannot be appointed on the post of petitioner. Further, prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay honorarium to the petitioner for the period she has worked pursuant to her appointment by memo dated 26.10.2004 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Satgawan, Koderma.
(2.) Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts in a nutshell is that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sewika for the Anganwari Centre, Sarbahna vide appointment letter dated 26.10.2004 issued by the respondent no.4. In pursuance to the said appointment order, the petitioner continued to discharge her duties to the utmost satisfaction of her superior authority. During her course of services, the petitioner underwent training of Anganwari Sewika. The respondent no.5 filed W.P.(S) No.4686 of 2010 which was disposed of on 26.10.2010 directing the respondent no.5 to prefer appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Koderma and the said writ petition was disposed of without hearing the petitioner. In pursuance to the aforesaid direction, respondent no.5 preferred appeal before the appellate authority i.e. respondent no.2 and the same has been decided on 08.05.2012 which is impugned in this writ application. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24.07.2012, the respondent no.3 directed respondent no.4 to issue appointment letter in favour of respondent no.5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner left with no other alternative has been constrained to knock the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner was not a party in W.P.(S) No.4686 of 2010 and no opportunity was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 by the respondent no.2 therefore, the entire exercise was undertaken by the respondent no.2 without valid notice to the petitioner who was duly and validly appointed as Anganwari Sewika for Anganwari Centre vide memo dated 26.10.2004 therefore, the impugned order dated 08.05.2012 is not legally sustainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appointment of the petitioner has never been terminated and in that eventuality, no order of appointment to respondent no.5 could have been issued. Therefore, the appointment of the respondent no.5 was void ab-initio moreover, the respondent no.5 did not function as Sewika till 03.09.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is settled position of law that observance of principle of natural justice is a concommittant of fair play, equity and justice. In the instant case, there has been breach of principle of audi alterm partem therefore, the action of respondents is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.;