1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI WP(S) No.4789 of 2019 ----- Aashlen Soren, aged about 26 years, wife of Shri Sanjay Hansda, village Baijnathdih, PO Ladhna, PS Mihijam, District Jamtara … Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, at Project Building, PO and PS Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara 3.The Child Development Project Officer, Jamtara 4.Balika Soren, wife of Basudeb Murmu, daughter of late Kandan Soren, r/o village Baijnathdih, PO Ladhna, PS Mihijam, District Jamtara … Respondents. CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Awanish Shekhar, AC to AAG-I …...... 06 /17.03.2025: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. No one appears on behalf of the private respondent no. 4 though vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4. 3. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by the order contained in Memo No. 79 dated 29.03.2019 by which the respondent no. 4 has been reinstated as Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre, Baijnathdih, District Jamtara. 4. Respondent no. 4 namely, Balika Soren was appointed as Anganbari Sevika of Anganbari Centre, Baijnathdih, District Jamtara. She was disengaged by the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The said Balika Soren approached this Court by filing the writ petition being WP(S) No. 3912 of 2013. The said writ application was taken up on 23.03.2017 and the learned Single Judge held that the Deputy Commissioner is not the appropriate Authority to disengage/remove Balika Soren rather it is the Child Development Project Officer who is the Authority. Thus directed the Child Development Project Officer to pass an appropriate order as per Government Guidelines dated 02.06.2006. Balika Soren was given liberty to approach the concerned Authority within three weeks and a direction was given to the Child Development Project Officer to pass an order within four weeks 2 thereafter. It was specifically mentioned in the order that the Court has not gone into the merits of the case and the same is left open to the respondent no. 3 for appropriate decision. 5. As the decision was not taken within the aforesaid period, the said Balika Soren filed an application for initiating a proceeding under the Contempt of Court’s Act being Cont. Case (Civil) No. 898 of 2017. In the contempt application the following order was passed on 01.03.2029: “1. Only for a day's absenteeism, the services of this petitioner have been terminated. This is a sum and substance of the writ petition. Dismissal order could not have been passed by the respondent-State for a day's absenteeism. 2. I expect from the respondent-State to put their house in order by the next date of hearing, failing which, opposite party no.2 shall remain personally present before this Court, on the next date of hearing at 10:30 a.m. 3. The matter is adjourned on 5th April, 2019.” 6. In the meantime, it is an admitted case that after Balika Soren was disengaged, this petitioner was appointed after following the procedure of law. This petitioner was working. 7. To avoid any further order in the contempt petition, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 29.03.2019 as contained in Memo No. 79. The said order reads as following: “Ekkuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] >kj[k.M] jkWph ds Cont. Case (Civil) No. 898/2017 esa fnukad&01-03-2019 dks ikfjr vkns’k “I expect from the respondent State to put their house in order by the next date of hearing, failing which, opposite party no. 2 shall remain personally present before this Court, on the next date of hearing at 10:30 a.m.” ds vuqikyu esa ckfydk lksjsu] ifr cklqnso eqewZ cStukFkMhg dks vkWxuckMh dsUnz cStukFkMhg esa lsfodk in ij ;ksxnku dh Lohd`fr nh tkrh gSA” 8. From perusal of the impugned order, I find that the respondents only to save themselves from rigors of the contempt had passed the impugned order. Admittedly the respondents did not initiated any proceeding as was directed to them by virtue of order dated 23.03.2017 passed in WP(S) No. 3912 of 2013. It was the Child Development Project Officer who had to independently adjudicate the correctness of dismissal of Balika Soren but he failed to do so. Just because the Coordinate Bench of this Court in a contempt application 3 directed the respondents “to put their house in order by the next date of hearing, failing which, opposite party no. 2 shall remain personally present before this Court.”, the impugned order was passed without any application of mind. The respondents were not supposed to reinstate Balika Soren rather they had to undertake the exercise to come to a conclusion as to whether the removal of Balika Soren was proper or not and then proceed. Be it noted that in the meantime, the petitioner was appointed. Right accrued in favour of the petitioner but surprisingly the petitioner was also not heard prior to passing of the impugned order. Thus the impugned order cannot be sustained. The same is thus set-aside. 9. The Child Development Project Officer now will adjudicate as to whether order of removal of Balika Soren was proper or not. This adjudication will be made after giving opportunity of hearing to Balika Soren and this petitioner also. If the Child Development Project Officer comes to a conclusion that removal of Balika Soren was proper then this petitioner must be reinstated. If it is found that the removal of Balika Soren was not proper then the petitioner will have no right to be reinstated. The entire decision be taken within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order by passing a reasoned order. 10. This writ petition stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Tanuj/