SUNITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although appeal of the petitioner is pending before the Deputy Commissioner, but considering the post on which the petitioner had been appointed and also considering the fact that this is the second round of litigation and even till now the reasons for the termination of the petitioner have not been disclosed and the case appears to be one of gross violation of the principles of natural justice, this writ petition is being entertained. I have heard both sides. Having gone through the impugned order it does not appear necessary to call for a counter affidavit.

(2.) The facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Angan Bari Sevika, and after working for 18 months her service was terminated on the ground that her original appointment was not valid. It was not disclosed as to what was wrong with the original appointment.

(3.) The petitioner came to this Court by means of W.P.(S) No. 104/2009, in which the matter was remanded back. Now the present impugned order has been passed again without disclosing as to what was wrong with the initial appointment.