RUBY DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred against an order, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Hussainabad, Palamau dated 22nd September, 2009, which is at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition, whereby the services of the present petitioner as Anaganbari Sevika has been put to an end.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that this is a second. round of litigation. Previously, an order was passed by the concerned officer, without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, without assigning any reasons, worth the name, and without giving any show cause notice and, therefore, the previously filed writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 115 of 2009 was allowed by this Court vide detailed speaking order dated 12th May, 2009 and ultimately, a direction was given by this Court that the Child Development Project Officer shall decide the claim of the present petitioner once again afresh, without being influenced by the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that after the aforesaid order, though the petitioner raised several issues, nothing has been accepted by the Child Development Project Officer and throughly, a non-speaking order once again has been passed on 22nd September, 2009 (Annexure 5 to the memo of petition), upholding the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, even after remand of the matter, no lesson has been learnt by the said Child Development Project Officer and with the same defects of non-application of mind and arbitrariness, once again an order has been passed, without assigning any reason, worth the name, for termination of the services of the present petitioner on 22nd September, 2009 and, therefore, the order at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition deserves to be quashed and set aside, with exemplary cost and it has been further submitted that now the matter may be remanded to be decided by another Child Development Project Officer and, at least, not the same officer.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the order at Annexure 5 to the memo of petition is giving a ratification to the decision, taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, and he has fairly submitted that no reasons have been assigned in the said order, worth the name, and he has submitted that let the matter be remanded and within the stipulated time, let the same be decided.