USHAMANI MOHARANA Vs. SUB COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing the order in Annexure -3 in which her services had been terminated.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that she was selected to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker of Mulakudai Anganwadi Centre and accordingly after receipt of appointment order, she joined the post. Thereafter, she was sent for training in June, 1991. After completing training for three months, she again joined in the Anganwadi Centre. It is further alleged in the writ application that one group of villagers wanted the Anganwadi Centre to be located at one place whereas another group of villagers wanted torun the centre at another place of their choice. In view of the above, there was disturbance in running the centre peacefully and it was intimated to the opposite parties 1 to 4 by the petitioner. Initially the Anganwadi Centre was functioning at Kasinath Mahila Samiti building of the said village and while the matter stood thus, one of the villagers namely, Hare Krushna Panda, donated some land under a registered gift deed for construction of Anganwadi Centre and the same was accepted by the Sub -Collector, Balasore. After construction of the house, the group who constructed the house demanded to shift the Centre to the newly constructed building whereas the other group demanded to run the Centre at Kasinath Mahiia Samiti building in view of such dispute between the two groups of the villagers, the petitioner could not run the Centre properly and it was known to the opposite parties. However, Annexure -3 was issued on 25th March, 1993 terminating the services of the petitioner on the allegation that she was remaining absent from duties from 25th December, 1992. It is specific case of the petitioner that she had not been given any opportunity of hearing at all before the order of termination was passed.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 5 has also filed a separate counter affidavit in which it is stated that she had been appointed in place of the petitioner and is continuing since almost a decade and there has been no complaint against the said opposite party and, therefore, her appointment to the post may not be disturbed.