SUNITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been preferred mainly challenging the order dated 30th September, 2009, passed by the Chief Development Project Officer, Chhatarpur within the district of Palamau (respondent No. 8), which is at Annexure 10 to the memo of petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were selected as Anganbari Sevika/Anganbari Sahayika. Subsequently, their services having been brought to an end, the petitioners had preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 194 of 2009, which was decided by this Court along with other analogous writ petitions by common order dated 12th May, 2009, which is at Annexure 9 to the memo of petition and the orders of termination, passed by the Child Development Project Officers, were quashed and set aside and it was also directed in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment/order, delivered by this Court dated 12th May, 2009, that if any decision is taken by the Deputy Commissioner in the form of guideline, given to the Child Development Project Officers, for passing the orders, which have been quashed by the High Court, shall be ignored and the matters were remanded to the Child Development Project Officers for taking a fresh decision, in accordance with law, rules, regulations and the Government policies.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Child Development Project Officer, Chhatarpur within the district of Palamau is as ignorant as he was earlier as he has passed again a non-speaking order dated 30th September, 2009, which is at Annexure 10 to the memo of petition, even after the matter has been remanded. No reasons have been given in the impugned order and it has been stated in the impugned order that both the parties are heard and the earlier direction, given by the Deputy Commissioner dated 26th December, 2008, is upheld, as if he is sitting In appeal against the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Child Development Project Officer is an inferior officer to the Deputy Commissioner and looking to the last paragraph of the impugned order, it appears that he is sitting in appeal against the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner and has upheld the decision, taken by the Deputy Commissioner and that too without any speaking order. Therefore, the impugned order being full of non-application of mind, arbitrary, whimsical and capricious, deserves to be quashed and set aside. No reason has been assigned for termination of the services of the petitioners. What is directed to be ignored in paragraph No. 8 of the earlier decision, given by this Court in the earlier writ petition, has been willfully considered, in violation of the earlier order and, therefore, let the matter be remanded and let it be decided by some another officer of the neighbouring district.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that as per the order, passed by this Court dated 12th May, 2009 in W.P.(S] No. 194 of 2009 and other analogous cases, respondent No. 8 has taken a fresh decision, which is at Annexure 10 to the memo of petition dated 30th September, 2009 and the earlier decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau dated 26th December, 2008 has been held as a valid one.