ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 14.07.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4908 of 2003, whereby and where under the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ application, merely on the ground that in view of the specific statements made by the Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, in his third counter affidavit that after the irregularity was detected in selection of the Appellants as Anganbari Sevikas, the Deputy Commissioner ordered for holding the fresh general meeting (Aam Sabha) and in the general meeting respondent no. 7 and 8 were selected/appointed as Sevikas for their respective villages. 2. The case of the appellant is that as per procedure and as planned earlier general meeting (Aam Sabha) was called and held at Sabanpur village on 10.05.2001 to select the Angan Bari Sevika, presided over by respondent no. 6, Child Development Programme Officer. After much discussion and consideration, Durga Devi, appellant no. 1 herein was selected. Similarly by a more or less parallel process at village Dharampur again in a meeting presided over by the C.D.P.O., appellant no. 2 herein, Aseera Khatoon was selected as Angan Bari Sevika. 3. The respondent no. 6 appointed the appellant no. 1 as Sevika and directed her to join her duty by 10.10.2001 and accordingly she joined duty on 10.10.2001. After separation of District and formation of Jamtara District the respondent no. 6, appointed the appellant no. 2 and directed to join her duty upto 20.03.2003 and accordingly she joined her duty on 20.03.2003. 4. That the respondent no. 6, for developing the efficiency of the appellants, decided to send the appellants for their training to the Angan Bari Training Centre at Dumarduga at Khunti, Ranchi. In this regards the respondent no. 6 issued the order dated 26.06.2003 and directed the appellants to attend the training. The appellants attended the training course of 52 days at Dumardaga, Khunti successfully and received the certificate in that regard. 5. Thereafter, it is stated by the appellant that one Pratibha Kumari, who also participated in the selection process, questioned the selection and appointment of appellant no. 1 on the ground that the appellant no. 1 has passed the Prevashika from Hindi Vidyapity and the name of Pratibha Kumari was recommended by Local MLA, namely, Furkan Ansari and hence, she deserves selection. 1 on the ground that the appellant no. 1 has passed the Prevashika from Hindi Vidyapity and the name of Pratibha Kumari was recommended by Local MLA, namely, Furkan Ansari and hence, she deserves selection. Further one A. Rashid husband of Genda Bibi filed complaint against appellant no. 2 stating therein that appellant no. 2 is not a resident of Dharampur and therefore, his wife, namely Genda Bibi should be appointed for the post of Sevika. As a result of these complaints, Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, Jharkhand, (Respondent no. 2) directed the officer in charge, Public Complain Cell, Jamtara District to direct the respondent no. 6 to start the selection proceeding at village Sabanpur and Dharampur to select the sevika, and accordingly the respondent no. 6 issued an order dated 09.09.2003 vide memo no. 252, by which respondents have directed to stop the work of sevika and fixed the date of general meeting on 30.09.2003 to select the sevikas afresh. 6. That after the order dated 09.09.2003 the appellants approached the respondent no. 2 and 6 through their representation on 18.09.2003 but the respondent no. 2, after perusing the contents of the representation refused to receive the same and lastly on 19.09.2003 the appellants sent it though registered post to the authority concerned. The respondent without giving any show cause notice to the appellant merely on the basis of complaints filed by the interested persons issued the annexure-11. By this memo no. 252 dated 09.09.2001, the C.D.P.O. stated that as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, he has ordered that the general meeting (Aam Sabha) be again conducted for selection of Sevikas at Sabanpur and Dharampur. It was also communicated that both the appellants have further been directed not to conduct the affairs of the office of the centre till further order. Thereafter appellant filed WP(C) No. 4908 of 2005 and by order dated 25.09.2003 Hon'ble Court has passed an order that :- "Learned Government Advocate prays for time to seek instruction and file counter affidavit. Put up this case on 14.11.2003. In the meantime, any appointment made by the respondents will be subject to the result of this writ application." Meanwhile, the appellants have also claimed that general meeting (Aam Sabha) was called and Pratibha Kumari and Safija Begam were selected as Angan Bari Sevika at Sabanpur and Dharampur respectively. 7. Put up this case on 14.11.2003. In the meantime, any appointment made by the respondents will be subject to the result of this writ application." Meanwhile, the appellants have also claimed that general meeting (Aam Sabha) was called and Pratibha Kumari and Safija Begam were selected as Angan Bari Sevika at Sabanpur and Dharampur respectively. 7. The Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court after hearing the appellants/petitioner on 14.07.2009 dismissed the writ petition as follows:- "After hearing the parties and after going through the pleadings made in the counter affidavit and in the writ petition, I find that in view of the specific statements made by the Secretary, government of Jharkhand, in his third counter affidavit that after the irregularity was detected in selection of the petitioners as Anganbari Sevika, the Deputy Commissioner ordered for holding the general meeting (Aam Sabha) and in the General Meeting the respondent nos. 7 and 8 were selected/appointed as Sevika for their respective villages and, as such, I find no illegality or irregularity in the appointment of the respondent nos. 7 and 8. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is dismissed." Arguments by Appellants 8. It is stated by the counsel for the appellant that the writ application was dismissed merely on the specific statements made by the Secretary, Government of Jharkhand respondent no. 9 that after the irregularity was detected in selection of the petitioners/appellants as Anganbari Sevika the Deputy Commissioner ordered for holding the general meeting. However, in the supplementary counter affidavit dated 21.09.2006, it is clearly stated that no such irregularity has been committed during the appointment of the petitioners/appellants. 9. That in the counter affidavit dated 29.06.2009 filed by Secretary, Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand wrong statement has been given that on 30.09.2003 in the general meeting, the appellant/petitioner no. 1 as well as respondent no. 7 participated and from a perusal of the proceedings it emerges as a clear fact that the Aam Sabha unanimously voted for the selection of Pratibha Kumari (respondent no. 7) for the post of sevika Anganbari, Sabanpur. 10. That in the third counter affidavit dated 29.06.2009, nothing has been stated against Appellant/petitioner no. 2 regarding selection as Anganbari Sevika, Dharampur being illegal. 11. 7) for the post of sevika Anganbari, Sabanpur. 10. That in the third counter affidavit dated 29.06.2009, nothing has been stated against Appellant/petitioner no. 2 regarding selection as Anganbari Sevika, Dharampur being illegal. 11. That in all three counter affidavits filed by the state of Jharkhand, no single word has been mentioned that illegality has been found for the selection of Sevika to the Appellant/petitioner no. 2. 12. The learned Single Judge did not direct the respondents to submit the enquiry report nor they have given any show cause to the petitioners/appellants. Arguments of State 13. It is stated by the counsel for the State that on the complaint received by the District Complaint Cell, vide Letter No. 27 dated 24.7.2003 of the Officer-in-Charge Public Complaints Cell, Jamtara an enquiry was conducted by the then Child Development Project Officer, Narayanpur and after getting and examining the said report submitted by the then Child Development Project Officer, the then Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara ordered that a fresh General Meeting (Aamsabha) be held for selection of Sevika for Anganbari Centre in question, as would be evident from Letter No. 89 dated 30.08.2003. 14. It is stated by the counsel for the State that it is quite evident from Letter No. 252 dated 9.9.2003 of the then Child Development Project Officer, Narayanpur in which it had been clearly ordered to both the appellants to stop the operation and work of Anganbari Centres concerned and to face the General Meeting (Aamsabha), which was to be convened again for selection of Sevika concerned. The answering respondents further state and submit that the appellants themselves clearly assert this fact in their appeal, stating therein that the Respondent No. 6 had issued an order dated 9.9.2003 vide Memo No. 252, directing therein to stop the work of Sevika and fixed the date of general meeting on 30.09.2003 for selection of Sevika afresh. 15. It is stated by the learned counsel for the State that on complaints submitted by one Mrs. 15. It is stated by the learned counsel for the State that on complaints submitted by one Mrs. Pratibha Kumari of village Sabanpur and Abdul Rasheed of Village Dharampur, regarding alleged irregularities committed in the selection, the Officer-in-Charge, Public Complaints Cell, Jamtara directed the then Child Development Project Officer, Narayanpur vide his Letter No. 27 dated 24.07.2003, as contained in Annexure-A to this counter affidavit, to enquire into the matter and submit a report and that after receiving and examining the enquiry report, the then Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara ordered to get afresh general meeting (Aamsabha) convened for selection of Sevika for the Anganbari Centre, in question, as would be evident from the letter dated 30.08.2003, as contained in Annexure-B to this counter affidavit. 16. It is stated by the counsel for the State that as per Memo No. 252 dated 09.09.2003, as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit dated 15.01.2010, the appellants were given equal and open opportunity to face the fresh General Meeting (Aamsabha), but they opted to move before this Hon'ble Court, rather to face the General Meeting (Aamsabha) through normal process. 17. It is stated by the counsel for the State that the selection of Mrs. Pratibha Kumari and Safija Begum has been done legally by due process through convening General Meeting (Aamsabha) as per the rules and regulations of the State Government. It is further submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, this Hon'ble Court had never put any restriction or status-quo in organizing general meeting. On the contrary, this Court had directed to put up the writ petition on 14.11.2003 and further directed that any appointment made by the respondents, in the meantime, will be subject to the result of the writ application. Reasons 18. From the arguments of the appellants, their main arguments have been that initially they were selected by due process and selected as Aanganbari Sevika and, therefore, their appointments cannot be cancelled. The appellants have also argued that the State or respondents have been inconsistent in their position regarding the appointments and that the counter affidavit by respondents 2 and 5 was due to the fault of the CDPO and motivated. The subsequent counter affidavit by the State, by respondent no. 2 stated no irregularities were there and then again there is a counter affidavit by the Secretary indicating irregularity in the selection of the appellants. The subsequent counter affidavit by the State, by respondent no. 2 stated no irregularities were there and then again there is a counter affidavit by the Secretary indicating irregularity in the selection of the appellants. The respondents on the other hand have pointed out the circumstances in which the second general meeting was ordered. They have pointed out that there was complaints from the respondent no. 7 and one A. Rashid, subsequent to which the C.D.P.O. made inquiry, and the Deputy Commissioner then ordered a fresh general meeting, in which the appellants were also directed to attend. This general meeting or Aam Sabha then selected respondents Nos. 7 and 8. The appellants could have attended the general meeting and presented their case and defended their posts, but, did not do so at their own peril. The counter affidavit of the Secretary Department of Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi is there because previously the court did not find the earlier counter affidavits proper or convincing, so it was directed so by a senior officer, which clarified the position. Finally, the Single Bench had placed no bar on fresh Aam Sabha, only directed that any appointment made will be subject to the result of the writ application. The Hon'ble High Court did not interfere in the subsequent appointments. 19. After the present appellants were noticed regarding the subsequent general meeting or Aam Sabha, they cannot complain that an opportunity of hearing was not given to them. They were well aware of the complaints against their case. The proper forum to raise their concerns or defence was the general meeting which they ignored. Hence, due process was observed in selection of respondent nos. 7 and 8 in the Aam Sabha and process of court will not be the appropriate forum to dislodge the selections of the Aam Sabha. 20. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing W.P.(S) No. 4908 of 2003 vide order dated 14th July, 2009 and we, hereby, uphold the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge as we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge. 21. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.