ORDER : In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing of the letter no. 2372, dated 23.09.2009, issued by D.C., Giridih addressed to D.D.C., Giridih & Memo No. 782 dated 21.10.2009, passed by D.D.C., Giridih and memo No.-330 dated 23.10.2009, passed by C.D.P.O., Bengabad, Giridih vide Annexure-2 to the writ application and the petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Anganbari Sewika for village- Kokarchi-I within the Giridih district. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell, is that an Aam Sabha was held for selection of the Anganbari Sewika for village Kokarchi-I in presence of the C.D.P.O., Bengabad and the petitioner was unanimously selected, as petitioner came from the caste which are in majority in that village and she fulfills all the criteria and in pursuance to selection, the petitioner joined the post of Anganbari Sewika on 26.06.2009. After joining on the said post, the petitioner continued to serve her duties to the utmost satisfaction of the competent authority but to the utter surprise and consternation of the petitioner, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled vide memo No. 330, dated 23.10.2009 issued by the C.D.P.O., Bengabad, (Giridih) (Respondent No. 4), which is impugned in this writ application. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of cancellation of selection of the petitioner, the petitioner filed the representation on 23.11.2011, before the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, but no action till date has been taken by the respondents. Left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 4. Heard Mr. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned J.C. to G.P. IV appearing for the Respondents-State. 5. Mr. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order passed vide Annexure-2, has been passed by the C.D.P.O., Bengabad, (Respondent No. 4) on the instruction of the Respondent No. 2, which is without jurisdiction. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned J.C. to G.P. IV appearing for the Respondents-State. 5. Mr. Ravindra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order passed vide Annexure-2, has been passed by the C.D.P.O., Bengabad, (Respondent No. 4) on the instruction of the Respondent No. 2, which is without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned order on the ground that the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sewika has been done by the Aam Sabha and power of termination of selection of an Aanganbari Sewika is vested with the Aam Sabha and it is only with the decision of the Aam Sabha that an order of termination of selection of an Aanganbari Sewika can be issued by the Child Development Project Officer and that too, after notice and hearing the parties but, in the instant case, the C.D.P.O., Bengabad (Respondent No. 4) has passed the impugned order of termination at the behest of the Respondent No. 2, therefore, the impugned order is bereft of jurisdiction and is not legally sustainable and is liable to be set aside. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of this Court in the case of Anita Devi versus State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2002 (2) JCR 287 (Jhr) as well as in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi versus State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2001 (1) JLJR 237 . By referring to the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power of removal of an Anganbari Sewika is vested with the Selection Committee and such order can be issued only after notice and hearing the parties. In the instant case, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, have not been adhered to and therefore, the impugned order of termination vide Annexure-2 is liable to be set aside. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned J.C. to G.P. IV appearing for the Respondents-State has reiterated the grounds taken in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has strenuously urged before this Court that the Respondent No. 1 by virtue of memo no. 2372 dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure-4) directed the Respondent no. 2 to take action for cancellation of selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sewika and therefore, the respondent no. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State has strenuously urged before this Court that the Respondent No. 1 by virtue of memo no. 2372 dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure-4) directed the Respondent no. 2 to take action for cancellation of selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Sewika and therefore, the respondent no. 2, through memo no.782, dated 21.10.2009 (Annexure-5) directed the respondent no. 4 to cancel the selection of the petitioner since the caste certificate on the basis of which, the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sewika has been done, has already been cancelled on 20.02.2013 and as such, the petitioner does not have any right to continue on the post of the Anganbari Sewika as is evident from Annexure-G to the supplementary counter affidavit. 7. Be that as it may, the caste certificate on the basis of which, the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sewika has been done, has been cancelled, much later after cancellation of selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sewika. There is no gain saying of the fact that the Aamsabha was conducted and the petitioner has undergone the process of selection and she was unanimously selected and on selection, she was appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevika on 26.06.2009 but the said selection of the petitioner has been cancelled vide the impugned order dated 23.10.2009 by the direction of the Respondent No. 2 to the respondent no.4 to dispense with the services of the petitioner. The action of the respondent No. 2 appears to be contrary to the selection procedure, therefore, the same is not legally sustainable. Moreover, the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order vide Annexure-2 to the writ application being not legally sustainable is liable to the set aside. 8. As a logical sequitor to the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of termination at Annexure-2, dated 23.10.2009, being not legally sustainable, is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the concerned respondents to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.