2025:JHHC:27205 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6258 of 2018 --------- Meena Kumari, aged about 35 years, Wife of Sri Manu Kumar, Resident of Village-Bishanpur, P.O.-Bhagaiya, P.S.-Meharma, District-Godda, Jharkhand. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Social Welfare, Women and Children Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building at Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District Godda, Jharkhand. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 5. The District Welfare Officer, Godda, P.O. & P.S.- Godda, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 6. The Block Development Officer, Thakurgangti, P.O. & P.S. Thakurgangti, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, Thakurgangti, P.O. & P.S. Thakurgangti, District-Godda, Jharkhand. 8. Kanti Devi, Wife of Sakhichand Ram, Resident of Village- Bishanpur, P.O. & P.S.-Bhagaiya, P.S.-Meharma, Dist.-Godda, Jharkhand. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajni Singh, Priyanka Boby, P.K. Verma, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C. (L&C)-II Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II --------- 09/Dated:-09.09.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the Memo No.447 dated 11.03.2013 (Annexure-8), passed by the 5th Respondent; whereby the services of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre, Bishanpur has been cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-3, which is the show-cause issued to 2025:JHHC:27205 2 the petitioner. With regard to the allegation made in the said show-cause dated 13.08.2012 wherein there is a specific query and allegation that the petitioner does not belong to the place where the concerned Anganbari Centre is situated, a reply was submitted. However, it was not specifically denied that the petitioner does not belong to the said place where the concerned Anganbari Centre was situated. The petitioner mainly argues on the point that before the order of termination, she was not given any show-cause. 4. From record, it appears that the counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been specifically contended in Paragraph-8 that the petitioner has obtained her appointment on the basis of false and fabricated certificates. It further transpires that the Letter No.117 dated 13.08.2012 clearly raises the issue of malpractice and fraudulently obtaining residential certificate and caste certificate and as stated hereinabove, the petitioner did not deny the allegation made in the show-cause dated 13.08.2012 to the effect that she belongs to that very village. 5. In other words, it is an admitted case that the petitioner does not belong to the concerned village where the concerned Anganbari Centre is situated; as such, as per the applicable rules and regulations, no any person can be appointed as Anganbari Sevika from an alien village subject to other condition mentioned in the notification. 6. The only grievance of the petitioner is that she was not given any show-cause notice before her termination. Admittedly, 2025:JHHC:27205 3 the respondents could not bring any document in order to demonstrate that show-cause was issued prior to issuance of termination order. However, even if the case is remitted for compliance of natural justice, no fruitful purpose would be served as on the face of it the petitioner does not belong to the concerned village where the Anganbari Centre is situated. Moreover, for the reason best known to the petitioner, the allegation in show-cause notice has neither been denied nor being assailed. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the case back to the concerned respondent for following natural justice as the petitioner has also not denied that she has used forged and fabricated certificate as alleged in Para-8 of the counter affidavit either before this Court or by filing of any rejoinder. 8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed, however, there is no order to costs. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-