JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 04.09.2009 whereby respondent no. 2 cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika. 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that in the Aamsabha held on 06.12.2006, the petitioner was selected and vide letter dated 13.06.2007, the petitioner was informed that she was selected on the post of Anganbari Sevika. Pursuant thereto, she continued on the post with utmost satisfaction to the authorities concerned. But, being aggrieved by her selection, another candidate who also participated in the selection process, approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 4365 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 22.04.2009 with a direction to dispose of the representation of the writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 4365 of 2007 by passing a speaking order. Pursuant thereto, the respondent no. 2-the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh passed impugned order whereby appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. 3. Heard Mr. Afaque Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jayant F. Toppo, learned counsel for the respondents-State and Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner has been done after following due procedure of law by the competent authority i.e. Aam Sabha and there is no procedural irregularity in the selection process. It has further been submitted that the respondent-Deputy Commissioner without issuing any show cause notice or affording opportunity to place her case passed the impugned order, which is violative of principle of natural justice. On merit of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that impugned order has been passed on the ground that in Garu Kurha, Upper Tola, Block Padma, the population of backward class is more than that of population of general class and as the petitioner belongs to general category her selection has been made in violation of departmental instruction given in letter dated 02.06.2006. Referring to Annexure 9 to the supplementary affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Child Development Project Officer, Padma, Hazaribagh vide letter dated 27.10.2009 (Annexure 9 to the Supplementary affidavit) has sent survey report after verification of Anganbari Centre, Garu Kurha-II, on the basis of survey register prepared and survey made on 23.06.2007, mentioning therein that population of general category people in the aforesaid centre is maximum. Hence, no ground is made out to cancel her appointment particularly on the ground that population of general category was less than that of other category of persons. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that as a matter of fact the C.D.P.O has submitted the break-up population of Garu Kurha Upper Tola on combining backward class with other backward class, which is altogether one category, it is higher than general category; hence no illegality has been committed by the learned Deputy Commissioner in passing the impugned order. It has further been submitted that the C.D.P.O, who was present in the Aam Sabha wrongly interpreted the Rules of selection, hence direction has been passed to proceed departmentally. 6. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that the petitioner was selected by the Aam Sabha, who is duly authorized to select Anganbari Sevika. One aggrieved candidate-respondent no. 5herein moved this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 4365 of 2007, which was disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2-The Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to dispose of the representation of the petitioner (respondent no. 5 herein). In compliance thereof, while disposing of the representation of respondent no. 5, the Deputy Commissioner dispensed with the services of the petitioner, who was continuing on the post for quite a long period i.e. for more than two years, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to place her case, which is violative of principles of natural justice. On the sole ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 7. On the merit of the case, the petitioner has referred to Annexure 9, which is a survey register, wherein it has been mentioned that population of general category people in the aforesaid centre is maximum; however, State interpreting its own letter stated that backward class and other backward class is to be taken together and on being taken together it is more than general category. 8. 8. Be that as it may be, the impugned order dated 04.09.2009 whereby respondent no. 2 cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika is hereby quashed and set aside on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and respondent no. 2 is directed to pass fresh order after affording opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 to place their case within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 10. Resultantly, I.A. No. 6146 of 2016 stands disposed of being infructuous.