Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents for quashing letter dated 14.05.2010 issued by District Social Welfare Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur on behalf of Deputy Commissioner whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner for appointment on her previous post of Anganbari Sewika has been rejected and; for quashing order as contained in Annexure 9 and for stay of implementation of order as contained at Annexure 9 and 10 of the writ application as the respondents are bent upon to appoint another person.
(2.) The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that pursuant to an advertisement for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika, the petitioner along with other candidates applied and after going through the selection process, petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sewika, accordingly she joined the Anganbari Centre on 5.1.1998 and continued to discharge her duties with utmost satisfaction to the authorities concerned. But due bad luck, the petitioner fell ill and underwent treatment under Dr. P.N. Sutradhar from 03.10.2002 to 4.10.2002. In the meantime, the authorities concerned made a surprise visit in which she was found absent resulting into issuance of letter dated 22.10.2002, by which the District Programme Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (respondent no. 4) issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking her to explain her absence on 4.10.2002 at the time of sudden inspection. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her reply explaining the fact that due to sudden illness she was not present in the Centre. Thereafter, again respondent no. 4 issued a notice regarding her absence but the petitioner has already explained her position regarding her absence. Thereafter, vide letter dated 9.12.2002, the respondent no. 4 served a show cause notice as to why her appointment be not cancelled due to non-compliance of direction of superior authority whereas no such violation has been done. Even then also, the petitioner explained that she had complied with each and every order of superior authority. Ultimately, by impugned order dated 16.06.2003 the respondent no. 3-Deputy Development Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur cancelled the appointment of the petitioner, which the petitioner challenged in W.P. (S) No. 6034 of 2003, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.07.2009 with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appear before the Deputy Commissioner, as per relevant rules. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred appeal before Deputy Commissioner, which was dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2010.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned letter dated 16.06.2003 issued by the DDC, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory, malafide, unjust and without authority of law. It has further been submitted that the ground on which the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled is not sustainable in the eye of law. Further, the District Social Welfare Officer has no jurisdiction to issue rejection order against the appeal of the petitioner. It has further been submitted that during pendency of the writ application, the respondent has come up with order dated 30.07.2015 passed by Deputy Commissioner stating that it is the order passed against the appeal preferred by the petitioner, then the order dated 14.05.2010 casts doubt.;