Shanti Devi vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an error in 2. 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.

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.

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the services of the petitioner

were terminated by an order of the Child Development Project Officer, Hariharganj, Palamu vide order dated 30th December, 2008. This order was

challenged in W.P.(S) No. 192 of 2009. The petition was allowed vide order dated 12th May, 2009 and the order, passed by the Child Development

Project Officer, Hariharganj, Palamu, dated 30th December, 2008 was quashed and set aside, as the services of the petitioner was terminated, without

giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Now, the difficulty starts that there was one order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu dated 26th December, 2008 and thereby, direction

was given by the Child Development Project Officer, Hariharganj, Palamu, who passed consequential order dated 30th December, 2008 and

therefore, the order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Palamu also deserves to be quashed and set aside, as it was also passed, without giving any

notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. This was not pointed out by the learned counsel for

the petitioner, partly due to inadvertence, partly due to misunderstanding of facts and law. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the order at

Annexure-16, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu dated 26th December, 2008 was the basis of the consequential order, which was to be

quashed by this Court and therefore, I hereby, quash and set aside the order, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamu dated 26th December,

2008 at Annexure-16 to the original writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 192 of 2009.

This writ petition is allowed and disposed of and the direction given by this Court, while passing an order dated 12th May, 2009 in W.P.(S) No. 192

of 2009 shall remain intact as it is. Afresh decision will be taken by the respondents, within sixteen weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of an

order of this Court. This order will be treated as part and parcel of the order dated 12th May, 2009, passed in W.P.(S) No. 192 of 2009.