Per Amitav K. Gupta, J.

The instant Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 21.09.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.6261 of 2011 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the aforesaid writ petition, preferred by the respondent No.8 namely, Kunti Devi of the present appeal.

2. The brief facts as narrated in the writ petition is that the respondent No.8, Kunti Devi was selected by the Aam Sabha on 18.01.2007 and a provisional selection letter was issued to her by the Child Development Programme Officer (C.D.P.O), Itkhori, Chatra and the appointment letter was issued by the said authority on 13.06.2008; that on 20.08.2011, the appointment of respondent No.8 was cancelled on the ground that she did not belong to the Posshak Chhetra (Feeder Area) comprising of village Lambodih, Prithvipur and Madhavpur for the Aaganbari Kendra at Madhavpur (Annexure – 3); that a show cause dated 05.09.2009 was issued to her by the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra to explain as to why her appointment should not be cancelled for submitting wrong residential certificate to which Kunti Devi submitted her reply, however, considering the reply, and a notice dated 03.03.2010 was issued by the Child Development Programme Officer, Itkhori in response to which, she has submitted a reply dated 24.05.2010, but her appointment was cancelled on 20.08.2011. Against the said order, she had preferred the aforesaid writ.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that after cancellation of appointment of respondent No.8 by an order dated 20.08.2011, a fresh Aam Sabha was convened and the appellant was selected by the Aam Sabha as a Aaganbari Sevika at Madhavpur Aaganbari Centre for which a provisional selection letter was issued to her on 27.09.2011 (Annexure – 10) subsequently, an appointment letter was issued to the appellant on 10.01.2012 (Annexue – 12).

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent No.8 had suppressed the material facts that the residential certificate, which was issued to her, was only for the educational purposes and this was informed by the Circle Officer, Itkhori vide letter dated 20.12.2008, addressed to the Child Development Programme Officer, Itkhori. It has further been argued that the respondent No.8 did not disclose the fact in the writ that the appellant herein was already appointed as Aaganbari Sevika. It is argued that respondent No.8 is not a resident of the village Lambodih rather she is a resident of Halmatta and she has only constructed a cowshed at village Lambodih, which was only for the purpose of getting certificate for educational purposes.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that as per Government’s Circular, the Aaganbari Sevika has to be a permanent resident of the village or Tola (neighborhood); that admittedly, the Aaganbari Centre was situated at village Madhavpur, district, Chatra and the said certificate was issued on the basis of the record of rights of the appellant whereas the residential certificate of the respondent No.8 was issued only for educational purposes. Since the respondent No.8 was not a permanent resident of village Lambodih, one of the feeder area of the Aaganbari Kendra at Madhavpur, accordingly, the Circle Officer, Itkhori informed the Child Development Programme Officer (C.D.P.O), Itkhori that the certificate of respondent No.8 was issued only for educational purposes. On the said basis, the residential certificate was found to be wrong and was not in consonance with the Government’s Circular (Annexure – B of the supplementary affidavit). Thus, after serving a show cause, an opportunity of hearing, appointment of respondent No.8 as Aaganbari Sevika was cancelled by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra and the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate this fact and has allowed the writ application solely on the ground that the services were terminated by the Deputy D