2025:JHHC:25562 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (S). No. 5689 of 2016 ------- Sangeeta Devi, wife of Vijay Oraon, resident of village Baragai, Maniyatoli, P.O. Baragai, P.S. Bhandra, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. 3. The District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga, P.O. and P.S. Lohardaga, District Lohardaga. 4. The Child Development Project Officer, Bhandra, P.O. and P.S. Bhandra, District Lohardaga. 5. Reena Devi, wife of Ajay Kumar Rana, resident of village Baragai, Maniyatoli, P.O. Baragai, P.S. Bhandra, District Lohardaga, Jharkhand. ……….. Respondents ---- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Mithilesh Singh, GA-IV Mr. Bhanu Pratap, AC to GA-IV For the Resp. No. 5: Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate ---- 13/ 20.08.2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 12.07.2016, as contained in letter No. 765 (Annexure-3), whereby in pursuance of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga, in Misc. Case No. 07/2010-11, the petitioner has been removed from the post of Aaganbari Sewika, Maniyatoli Centre and in her place, the 5th respondent-Reena Devi has been appointed. 2. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was serving as Aanganbari Sewika from the year 2010 and without any show-cause and without any ground, she has been terminated. He further submits that earlier, the respondent No. 5 filed a writ application against the decision of her non-consideration as Aanganbari Sewika and in the said writ application, the petitioner was not made party-respondent though respondent No. 5 was fully aware that the present petitioner was working as Aanganbari Sewika in the 2025:JHHC:25562 2 concerned Aangabari Centre. This Court after hearing the parties was pleased to remit the matter before the Deputy Commissioner and even the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga (respondent No. 2) in Misc. Case No. 07/2010-11 did not call the petitioner, who was admittedly working as Anganbari Sewika of the concerned Centre and thereafter, the order has been passed behind the back of this petitioner and as such, the instant application may be allowed and the matter may be remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga for taking fresh decision. 3. From the records, it appears that vide order dated 05.10.2023, this Court directed the answering respondent to bring the entire records of Misc. Case No. 07/2010-11 on record and further directed the respondent-State to file specific affidavit stating therein as to whether present petitioner was heard while passing the order dated 14.10.2017 in Misc. Case No. 07/2010-11 or not. 4. Pursuant thereto, a counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2 on 15.12.2023, wherein at para-8 and 9 it has been stated as under: “8. That it is most humbly submitted that the anganbadi centre Baragai Maniyatoli was having majority population of O.B.C and as per letter no 585 dated 02.06.2006 the candidate must be from the majority community. It is relevant to note that present petitioner was from Scheduled Tribe and therefore her appointment was made against the rule. That the respondent no.5 is working in the post of anganbadi sevika since 2016 continuously. 9. That in response to the specific query of this Hon'ble court, it is most humbly submitted that bare perusal of the aforesaid record of the case it is evident that the present petitioner was not a party to the proceeding in connection with Misc case no 7 of 2010-11. That at this juncture it is pertinent to state and submit before the Hon'ble Court that the appointment of the petitioner on the said post was void ab- initio as the same was not in consonance with the Govt. circular contained in resolution no.585 dated 02.06.2006, issued by the Department of Woman and Child Development, Govt. of Jharkhand. That the petitioner belong to the 'ST' category whereas the private respondent no.5 belongs to the 'OBC' category whose population is in majority at place where Anganbadi Centre 'Baragai Maniyatoli' is situated. Thus the appointment of the petitioner was dehors the Govt. circular contained in resolution no. 585 dated 02.06.2006 issued by the Department of Woman and Child Development, Govt. of Jharkhand, making the same void ab-initio and the then Deputy Commissioner by passing order dated 14.10.2017 in Misc case no. 7 of 2010-11 sought to correct the mistake which had crept in appointing the petitioner.” 2025:JHHC:25562 3 5. After going through the averments, it is evident that the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the village where the concerned Anganbari Centre is situated, is dominated by majority population of OBC community and as per letter dated 02.06.2006, the candidates must be from the majority community. 6. It has been specifically contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has not been heard by Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga before removing her from service but the fact remains that petitioner did not dispute the factual aspect that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the concerned Aanganbari Centre is in a village where majority population is of OBC. 7. It is true that in a case of non-compliance of principle of natural justice, an opportunity must be given to the concerned employee to adduce his/her evidence and present his case and any order must be passed after hearing the person against whom the order is to be passed which is having civil consequences. 8. However, it is also correct that this application has been filed in the year 2016 and petitioner is not able to controvert the factual aspect that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe community and the village concerned, where Aangabari Centre is situated is dominated by OBC community; as such merely remitting the case to the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga to take a fresh call on the decision will not be fruitful; rather, it will again multiply litigation and create confusion, inasmuch as, in the instant case the facts are admitted after filing of the counter-affidavit referred herein above. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to this petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Kunal