Order Heard the parties. 2. This is the third round of litigation at the instance of the petitioner. 3. The petitioner was working as Aanganbari Sevika, her appointment has been cancelled. 4. According to the petitioner she was performing her duty as Aanganbari Sevika after being appointed on 22.6.2007 as Aanganbari Sevika pursuant to the resolution taken in the meeting of Gram Sabha held on 4.11.2006. Her selection/appointment was cancelled on 30.12.2008 vide Annexure-4. The petitioner challenged the order of her cancellation of appointment in W.P.(S) No.1 04 of 2009, which was disposed of by order dated 12.5.2009 with direction to the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a fresh order after hearing her. The petitioner thereafter heard by the respondent and then by order dated 15.9.2009 (Annexure-6), the earlier order of cancellation of appointment of petitioner was maintained. 5. The petitioner again challenged the said order dated 15.9.2009 by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 169 of 2010. By order dated 22.1.2010 the said writ petition was disposed of to decide the matter afresh on the ground that the impugned order did not disclose as to what was wrong with the original appointment of the petitioners. The respondents were directed to disclose the details of what has been considered so wrong in the initial appointment of the petitioner. 6. The petitioner was thereafter noticed by the respondents and thereafter by an order dated 12.3.2010 contain in Annexure-9 to this writ petition again the order of cancellation of appointment of petitioner was maintained, which is under challenged in this writ petition. 7. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that again the respondent has not assigned any reason for cancellation of her appointment. The order and direction given by this court has not been followed and therefore the impugned order is arbitrary and whimsical. 8. On perusal of impugned' order (Annexure-9), it appears that the following facts have been noted therein; (a) A meeting of the Gram Sabha was held on 4.11.2006 for selection of Sevika and in the said meeting a resolution was taken to select and appoint Smt. Binda Devi who was a matriculate and she belonged to Scheduled Tribe community and accordingly recommendation was made for her appointment but in the letter of recommendation the name of Binda Devi was penned through and the name of the petitioner Sunita Devi was inserted. Consequently the petitioner got appointed as Sevika and started working. (b) The selected and recommended candidate Smt. Binda Devi filed an objection alleging that though she was selected and recommended for appointment as Sevika but illegally her name was cut in the recommendation letter and the name of petitioner Sunita Devi was inserted illegally. (c) The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau got the matter enquired and then on enquiry it was found on facts that the allegation of Smt. Binda Devi was correct and it was detected that though she was selected for appointment but after cutting her name in the recommendation letter the name of the petitioner Sunita Devi was inserted wrongly and she was appointed as Sevika, though she was never selected by the Aam Sabha and the Chairmen/ President of the Aam Sabha did not recommend her name. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the Deputy Commissioner, took a decision to cancel the appointment of the petitioner as Sevika since the same was against the rules. In this view of the matter the cancellation of the appointment of petitioner as sevika has been maintained in the impugned order. 10. Therefore, the impugned order for the reasons stated does not suffer from any infirmity. The respondents have rightly cancelled the appointment of the petitioner as Sevika, since she was not selected for being appointed as such by the Gram Sabha and her name was inserted in the recommendation letter by some vested interest. 11. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.