SHANTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Anganbari Sahiyka appointed on 27th January, 2006 and she was working since long. Thereafter, abruptly her services were terminated at the behest of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, who passed the order dated 26th December, 2008, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The said order is at Annexure-16 to the memo of the original petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 192 of 2009. On the basis of this order, the Child Development Project Officer, Hariharganj, Palamu, passed an order on 30th December, 2008, which is at Annexure-15 to the memo of the W.P.(S) No. 192 of 2009 whereby, the services of the petitioner were terminated, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and therefore, a writ petition was preferred, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 12th May, 2009 and only one order was quashed and set aside i.e. one which was passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Hariharganj, Palamu, dated 30th December, 2008, at Annexure-15 to the memo of the original writ petition, but, this order was based upon the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu dated 26th December, 2008 (Annexure-16 to the memo of the original petition) and therefore, that order also may be quashed, so that afresh decision may be taken by the Child Development Project Officer, Hariharganj, Palamu, without being influenced by the earlier order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu dated 26th December, 2008.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an error in making the prayer and though, the order was dictated in the open Court, it was not brought in the Court. Be that as it may, Annexure-15 has been quashed and set aside and therefore, an Annexure-16 also deserves to be quashed and set aside, so that afresh decision may be taken by the Child Development Project Officer, Hariharganj, Palamu.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that as the order at Annexure-15 has already been quashed by this Court, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Hariharganj, Palamu and this order was based upon the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu and that was also passed, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and therefore, it also deserves to be quashed and set aside, but, there is no error in the order, passed by this Court, as it ought to have been pointed out by the petitioner, while the dictation was going on in the open Court, for quashing of an order at Annexure-16 to the memo of the original petition.