JUDGMENT D.N. Patel, J. - This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4891 of 2015 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 11th August, 2016, whereby, the prayer of this appellant (original petitioner) challenging the order passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Madhupur, District- Deoghar dated 18th March, 2015 was not accepted and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that respondent no.8 was appointed as Anganbari Sevika at Centre No. 157 in the district of Deoghar. Her appointment was cancelled by the appointing authority directly vide order dated 26th February, 2010. 3. Respondent no.8 had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 1219 of 2010 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 2nd December, 2014 and the order passed by the respondents dated 26th February, 2010 was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded by the learned Single Judge for the decision to be taken by the Child Development Project Officer, Madhupur, District- Deoghar. 4. Now, the Child Development Project Officer has passed an order on 18th March, 2015 which is at Annexure-8 by which respondent no.8 was continued on the post of Anganbari Sevika and the case of this appellant was rejected by the Child Development Project Officer, Madhupur, District- Deoghar. 5. An appeal is provided against this order under the policy floated by the State of Jharkhand dated 2nd June, 2006, which can be preferred by this appellant before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. 6. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent no.8 is not a resident of Poshak Kshetra of Guniyasole, DistrictDeoghar. This aspect of the matter will be taken care of by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant as well as to respondent no.8. 7. Liberty is reserved with this appellant to prefer an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and if it is already preferred, the Deputy Commission, Deoghar will decide the same in accordance with law and evidences on record, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant as well as to respondent no. 7. Liberty is reserved with this appellant to prefer an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar and if it is already preferred, the Deputy Commission, Deoghar will decide the same in accordance with law and evidences on record, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant as well as to respondent no. 8 and without influenced by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 4891 of 2015. 8. This Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, disposed of, with the aforesaid observations.