- (1.) I .A. No. 2354 of 2009 in W.P.(S) No. 4509 of 2007 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners praying for deleting the name of the petitioner no. 1 who has died. In view of the above, name of the petitioner no. 1 Sangita Gupa is deleted from the cause title. I.A. is disposed of. Since the issues involved in both the writ application are the same, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Heard Shri Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners and JC to SC -II for the respondent State.
(2.) CHALLENGE in both the writ applications is to the order dated 17.5.2007 (Annexure -6) issued by the District Programme Officer, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 4), by which a direction was issued to the CDPO, Chauparan, Hazaribagh (Respondent No. 5) to conduct a fresh selection process for appointment of Aanganwari Sewikas at village Machale Angan Bari Centres and other adjoining centres. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were admittedly appointed on the post of Aanganwari Sewikas and they were allowed to work for more than 10 months. The petitioners however, were taken by surprise on being informed of the impugned order (Annexure -6) passed by the Respondent No. 4 whereby a direction was given to the Respondent No. 5 for holding a fresh Aam Sabha for appointment of Aanganwari Sewika for the same centres in spite of the fact that the petitioners were already working on the post pursuant to their earlier selection. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid direction apparently amounts to cancellation of the petitioners' appointment and the same could not have been issued without affording the petitioners a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to justify their selection. Learned counsel adds further that even otherwise, the Respondent No. 4 had no authority to issue any such direction to the CDPO for holding a fresh Aam Sabha for the purpose of selection and appointment of Aanganwari Sewika for the same centre which had already been concluded more than 10 months ago by selection and appointment of the petitioners.
(3.) TO buttress his argument, learned counsel would refer to the judgments of this court passed in the case of Nilima Mandal V/s. The State of Jharkhand and others [W.P.(s) 4561 of 2006] and in the case of Pushpa Kumari and others V/s. The State of Jharkhand and others [W.P.(S) No. 3156 of 2007] and another judgment in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi and others V/s. The State of Jharkhand and othes [2001 (1) JLJR 237].;