ORDER : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to accept the joining of the petitioner and to allow her to continue as an Anganbari Sewika in Surjudih Anganbari Centre considering her acquittal in Criminal case and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Durga Charan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Kaustav Rai, J.C to Sr. S.C. III for the respondents-State and Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, for respondent no. 5. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially petitioner was appointed vide memo dated 12.07.1988 as Anganbari Sewika in Surjidih Anganbari Centre and continued upto December, 2000 to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned. While continuing as such, a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner, being Gopikandar P.S Case No. 32 of 2000 against the petitioner, in which, later on the petitioner was acquitted by learned Additional District Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 72 of 2005 vide order dated 09.01.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that during pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner made an application before the Child Development Project Officer, Gopikandar requesting therein to stop the selection of Anganbari Sewika in that Centre till disposal of the case but in spite of that the respondent no. 5 was appointed de hors the rules. However, after acquittal in criminal case, the petitioner again represented before the respondents-authorities for accepting her joining but it did not evoke any response. 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision rendered in the case of Panchdeo Singh v. M/s BCCL & Ors as reported in 2003 (2) JCR 406 (Jhr), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that in case of subsequent acquittal of employee in criminal case, the respondents-authorities is bound to consider the representation of the employee. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submitted that while the petitioner was working as Anganwari Sewika in Surjudih Centre, it was reported that materials of the centre has been stolen away, which, on search was found in the house of Shiv Lal Hansda of the same village. However, on query, it came to surface that it was kept by the petitioner. However, on query, it came to surface that it was kept by the petitioner. On the basis of such report, the petitioner was debarred from working as Anganbari Sewika by the competent authority-Child Development Project Officer, Gopikandar vide letter dated 11.06.2001 and by conducting fresh selection process, respondent no. 5 was selected in the meeting held on 31.01.2007, who is discharging her duties for the last one decade. It has further been submitted that petitioner is not the resident of that village and otherwise also the petitioner was not honorably acquitted. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 submits that the petitioner is not resident of village Surjidih and as per Clause (Ga) of appointment of Anganbari Sewika Rules, for appointment on such post, the persons must be of the same village where Anganbari Centre is situated. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of record, it appears that while the petitioner was continuing as Anganbari Sewika, a criminal case was lodged against the petitioner on the allegation of theft of materials of Anganbari Centre, in which, she was put behind bar and for this reason, the petitioner was prohibited to function as Anganbari Sewika vide letter dated 11.06.2001 of C.D.P.O, Gopikandar. From perusal of record, it further appears that in G.R. Case No. 08 of 2001, the petitioner was convicted under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I for two years with fine of Rs. 2000 vide judgment dated 06.08.2005. However, in appeal, being Cr. Appeal No. 72 of 2005 the petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 09.01.2007 but on account of benefit of doubt and it cannot be said to be an honorable acquittal. 8. Be that as it may be, as of now, respondent no. 5 is working on the said post after removing the petitioner from that post, for the last ten years and it is not a case where there is any illegality in process of appointment of respondent no. 5. 9. In the result, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.