Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dt. 30.4.2013, passed by the District Programme Officer, Patna in Case No. 238 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sahayika has been cancelled. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Appellate order dated 5.10.2013, passed by the Deputy Director, Welfare, Patna Division, Patna in Appeal No. 34 of 2013-14, whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as a Sahayika, vide letter dated 31.05.2007 at Anganbari Centre, Saupha Road, Code No. 129. A surprise inspection is stated to have been conducted by the State level inquiry Squad on 14.02.2013 at the center in question and several irregularities were found inasmuch as only 4 children were present, the meal had been prepared in less quantity, the petitioner was not coming to the center and the Take home ration etc. were not being distributed as per the guidelines. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 18.04.2013 was issued to the petitioner by the District Programme Officer, Patna, and upon granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, he had passed an order dated 30.4.2013, cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Sahayika. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce hereinbelow the relevant portion of the order dated 30.4.2013: –

^^lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk mifLFkrA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkfèkdkjh mifLFkr gSaA lsfodk us viuk fyf[kr Li"Vhdj.k lefiZr fd;k gSA lsfodk dk dFku gS fd bl dsUæ dh lgkf;dk fu;fer :i ls dsUæ ij ugha vkrh gS vkSj viuk dk;Z ugha djrh gSA lsfodk dks vi'kCn dgrh gSA dsUæ ij cPpksa dks ugha jgus nsrh gSA eSa Lo;a cPpksa dks cqykdj ykrh gwa ysfdu lgkf;dk lHkh cPpksa dks Hkxk nsrh gSA lgkf;dk us mifLFkfr iath Hkh QkM+ nh gSA pwafd lgkf;dk iaft;ksa dks QkM+ nsrh gS blfy, eSa iaft;ka ugha j[k jgh FkhA ysfdu efgyk i;Zosf{kdk ds dgus ij eSaus mifLFkfr iath lgkf;dk dks ns nhA tc lgkf;dk ls ekaxh rks mlus dgk eSa iath ugha nwaxhA vc esjk iath gSA bldh lwpuk eSaus efgyk i;Zosf{kdk dk vkosnu }kjk fn;k rks mUgksaus vkosnu ugha fy;kA lgkf;dk ds fo"k; esa cky fodkl ifj;kstuk dk;kZy; esa vkosnu fn;k x;k gSA fnukad 30-01-2013 dks dsUæ ij pksjh gksus ds dkj.k dsUæ [kqyk Fkk ftlds dkj.k cPpksa dks dsUæ ij j[kus esa ijs'kkuh gks jgh FkhA iks"kkgkj cukus ds Øe esa cPps Hkkx jgs Fks vkSj ml fnu ljLorh iwtk gksus ds dkj.k dqN cPps ewfrZ ns[kus Hkkx x, FksA 1 cts dk le; gksus ds dkj.k dqN cPps gkFk&eqag èkksus x, Fks] blh dkj.k ml le; dsUæ ij cPps de FksA esjh cgu dh 'kknh ds dkj.k eSa fnukad 08-02-2013 ls 13-02-2013 rd NqV~Vh esa FkhA eSaus dsUæ ij 6 fnuksa ds iks"kkgkj dh lkexzh dsUæ ij j[k dj xbZ FkhA ykHkkfUorksa dk gLRkk{kj;qDr vkosnu Hkh layXu fd;k x;k gSA lgkf;dk vius Li"Vhdj.k esa dgrh gS fd eq>s gkFk esa nnZ gksus ds dkj.k eSa nks ?kaVk ds fy, MkWDVj ls bZykt djkus xbZ Fkh] mldk Áek.k i= layXu gSA eSa Áfrfnu dsUæ ij vkrh gwa vkSj dk;Z lqpk: :i ls djrh gwaA
lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk ds Li"Vhdj.k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA pwafd fujh{kh inkfèkdkjh }kjk Áfrosfnr fd;k x;k gS fd dsUæ ij ek=k 04 cPps FksA VhŒ,pŒvkjŒ dh ek=k de ckaVh tkrh gSA lgkf;dk fcuk vius fu;a=h inkfèkdkjh ds vuqefr ds vuqifLFkr gSA blls Li"V gksrk gS fd lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk dks dsUæ lapkyu esa dksbZ :fp ugha gSA vr% jkT; Lrjh; Vhe }kjk Áfrosfnr vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa iVuk lnj&1 ifj;kstuk ds varxZr vkaxuckM+h dsUæ la[;k&129 dh lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk dks p;ueqDr fd;k tkrk gSA**

3. The petitioner had then challenged the aforesaid order dated 30.4.2013, by filing an appeal bearing Anganbari Appeal Case No. 34 of 2013-14, before the learned Deputy Director Welfare, Patna Division, Patna, however, the appeal was also rejected, by a reasoned and a speaking order dated 05.10.2013.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was working efficiently, but on the alleged date of inspection, she had gone to the Doctor since she was ill, hence