2026:JHHC:13327 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2824 of 2018 Melani Hembrom, W/o Sri Sushil Murmu, Resident of Village- Gopalpur, P.O.-Dangapara, P.S.-Hiranpur, Dist.-Pakur, Jharkhand, aged about 48 Years .... Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Project Building,. P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District- Pakur, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District- Pakur, Jharkhand. 4. The District Social Welfare Officer, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District- Pakur, Jharkhand. 5. The Block Development Officer, Pakur, P.O., P.S. & District- Pakur, Jharkhand. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.-Pakur, District- Pakur, Jharkhand. ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kant Thakur, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, SC (L&C)-I -------- Order No. 20/Dated: 18th April 2026 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order dated 12.03.2018 issued by the 6th Respondent; whereby the service of the petitioner has been terminated without issuing show-cause notice from the post of Sewika, Aanganwari Centre, Devapara Panchayat, PO-Dangapara, PS-Hiranpur District-Pakur. 2. From record it appears that a counter affidavit has been filed wherein it is specifically stated that show-cause was issued to the petitioner on 12.07.2017 and the same was received. As such, the statement made in the prayer that the petitioner was not issued any show-cause has been demolished by this show-cause notice annexed at 2026:JHHC:13327 2 page no. 35 of the counter affidavit dated 18.07.2019. It further transpires from the pleadings that on the one hand, the petitioner has stated that she has not received the show-cause notice before termination from service; however, during argument learned counsel tries to impress upon this Court that only two days’ time was given to the petitioner; as such she has not replied to the show-cause. 3. Be that as it may; this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025 has directed the respondent-authority to seek instruction as to whether anyone has been appointed in place of the petitioner or not on the post of Sewika of the concerned Aanganwari Centre. Pursuant thereto at paragraph no. 16 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 08.11.2025, a specific statement has been made that one Babli Hembrom who is Sewika of another Aanganwari Centre has been directed to act and perform the duty of Sewika in place of Malani Hembrom. This arrangement is not acceptable to this Court because certainly if any person is given additional charge, then there will be loss of performance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon Clause 16 of the Circular dated 02.06.2006 and contends that the CDPO was not the competent authority either to issue show-cause or to terminate the petitioner from service. In this regard, it has been stated by the respondent-State in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 08.11.2025 that the District Social Welfare Officer, Pakur vide his office letter dated 24.02.2018 has communicated to the CDPO, Hiranpur, Pakur that the Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur has accorded termination of services of the petitioner. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner that CDPO was required to take concurrence from the Deputy Development Commissioner has been answered. Another argument which has been canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner that she was given only two days’ time to submit reply 2026:JHHC:13327 3 to the show-cause is an afterthought because in the prayer made in the writ application itself it has been categorically stated that no show-cause was issued which statement is false on the face of it. Thus, the petitioner does not have any right to seek relief on the famous maxim that one who comes to the Court must come with clean hand. As a matter of fact, a complaint was made in the Chief Minister Grievance Cell and on inspection it was found that the concerned Aanganwari Centre was closed. It is true that two days’ time is not sufficient but there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner even requested for more time to submit reply to the show cause and straightway she knocked the door of this Court. 4. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioner but as stated hereinabove giving additional charge to a person who is already a Sewika in another Aanganwari Centre, will certainly affect both the Aanganwari Centre. Accordingly, the respondent-State is directed to initiate a process of fresh appointment of Aanganwari Sewika in the concerned Aanganwari Centre as early as possible by following the procedure. 5. It goes without saying that if the petitioner is interested, she may appear pursuant to the advertisement/public notice in accordance with applicable procedure. Further the petitioner would be at liberty to appear in the Aam Sabha also. The order of this Court shall not be taken as hinderance in appointing the petitioner, if she is eligible/qualified. 6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 7. Pending I.As, if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 18th April 2026 Amit Uploaded on 13/05/2026