MALTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,on being selected, was appointed as Anganbari Sevika' at Chirunwa Centre, Hazaribagh, but suddenly her services were terminated on the ground that she never belonged to a major group of the village. Thereupon, the Gram Sabha convened a meeting for the selection of the Anganbari Sevika in which the petitioner participated and was selected again for appointment as Anganbari Sevika for the same Centre, but the appointment was made provisionally. Even that order was never given effect to, as a result of which the petitioner, after being terminated, has not been under the employment.

(2.) Learned counsel further submits that subsequently upon recommendation being made by Gram Sabha, one Smt. Leelawati Devi-respondent No.7 was appointed as Anganbari Sevika' for the same centre and presently she has been working on the same centre over which rightful claim is of the petitioner as the services of the petitioner was terminated without giving any show cause and as such any order under which services of the petitioner has been terminated, is against the principles of natural justice.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that when the services of the petitioner was terminated earlier as contained in Memo No.47 dated 29.01.2008 (Annexure-7), she seems to have accepted the order of termination, as the petitioner subsequently had participated in the meeting convened by the Gram Sabha for the selection of the Anganbari Sevika for the same Centre and, therefore, now it is not open for the petitioner to challenge that order. It was also submitted that there has been provision under the scheme for preferring an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner against the order terminating the services of Anganbari Sevika on the ground of illegal appointment.