ORDER 1. We have heard both sides. 2. Petitioner was an Anganbari Sevika elected by the Aam Sabha and appointed in the year 2007. Subsequently, by the order, which was under challenge in the writ petition, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar cancelled the appointment on the ground that the Petitioner was not the daughter-in-law of the village where she has been appointed but a daughter. In the writ petition, it was urged and accepted by the learned single Judge that the Petitioner was a married daughter having her parental house in the village where she has been appointed and the scheme permitted the appointment of married daughter residing in the village where the appointments were sought to be made and only debarred the unmarried daughters. 3. Having come to that conclusion, the learned single Judge further directed an inquiry to be held about the actual residence of the Petitioner in the village where she has been appointed. This direction only appears to be reasonable, because a married lady, living in her parental house and not with her husband, is not normal and although it has been submitted that the Appellant was living at her parental village along with her husband, but it has not been detailed why the husband had started residing in that village and what he was doing for a living there. 4. However, learned single Judge in the impugned order passed in the writ petition further went on to direct that if the Petitioner is found residing in her parental village a fresh Aam Sabha should be convened for making a fresh appointment on the post, in which the Petitioner may also be allowed to participate. No reason has been given for this third direction. 5. We are of the opinion that the Petitioner having been once selected by the Aam Sabha need not face a fresh Aam Sabha for continuing on the post, if the finding about the residence is returned in favour of the Petitioner. 6. The reason, as appears from the impugned order of the learned single Judge in the writ petition, is that despite the finding about the reason given in the order under challenge being incorrect in law, the order, under challenge in the writ petition, was not quashed. 7. 6. The reason, as appears from the impugned order of the learned single Judge in the writ petition, is that despite the finding about the reason given in the order under challenge being incorrect in law, the order, under challenge in the writ petition, was not quashed. 7. In the circumstances, we modify the order of the learned single Judge by setting aside the third direction regarding holding of a fresh Aam Sabha, if the finding about the residence is returned in favour of the Petitioner. We further direct if the finding is returned in favour of the Petitioner, the termination order shall stand set aside and the Petitioner will be allowed to continue as Anganbari Sevika. 8. With this observation, this appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.