IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI.
W.P. (S) No. 5169 of 2007
...
1. Sangeeta Devi
2. Rita Devi ... ... Petitioners
-V e r s u s-
1. State of Jharkhand
2. Director, Department of Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
3. Dy. Commissioner, Palamau.
4. Dy. Development Commissioner, Palamau.
5. District Programme Officer, Palamau.
6. Child Development Project Officer, Palamau.
7. Punam Devi.
8. Lalo Devi ... Respondents.
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
...
For the Petitioner : - Mr. Ananda Sen, Advocate.
For the Respondent-State : - Ms. Nehala Sharmin, J.C. to Sr. S.C. II.
For the Respondent Nos. 7 & 8: - Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate.
...
6/16.09.2009
Heard Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.
Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the Respondent-State and Mr. Sumir Prasad,
learned counsel for the private Respondent Nos. 7 & 8.
2. The petitioners’ grievance, in this writ application, is that their
services on the post of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika, granted to them pursuant
to the resolution and the recommendation of the Aamsabha held in April, 2006,
has been cancelled and that too without any prior notice to the petitioners nor
affording any opportunity whatsoever of being heard against the proposed
termination.
3. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the petitioners would refer in
this context to Annexure-4, which is the order issued by the District Programme
Officer, a copy of which has been forwarded to the petitioners, whereby the
Respondents have themselves acknowledged that the services of the petitioners
have been terminated even without giving them any show cause notice.
Learned counsel submits further that there could not be any
other clear instance when the basic principles of natural justice has been abjectly
violated in the matter of termination of the services of the employees who were
granted appointment after due selection.
4. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State submits that though the
impugned order has been passed without issuance of any prior notice to the
petitioners but the remedy by way of an appeal is available to the petitioners
which they ought to have availed.
5. In the light of the admitted facts that the petitioners were earlier
appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika by a specific order and
were allowed to continue in service for a substantial period, and such appointment
has been abruptly cancelled without issuing any prior notice or affording any
opportunity of hearing to them, the order of termination being in violation of the
principles of Natural Justice, cannot be sustained.
6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, finding merit in this
writ application, the same is allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated-
22.08.2007 (Annexure-4) so far it affects the petitioners, is hereby quashed. The
Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district (Respondent No. 3) is directed to
take a fresh decision in the matter after affording the petitioners adequate
opportunity of being heard and shal6+l effectively communicate his decision to
the petitioners. The entire exercise must be completed within a period of two
months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
7. With these observations, this writ application stands disposed of.
8. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the
Respondent-State.
(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)
APK