JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J. 1. Heard Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Brij Bihari Sinha, learned G.A.-II assisted by Mr. Sanket Khanna, A.C. to G.A.II for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 24.09.2010 (annexed at Annexure-15 to the writ petition) in relation to the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika and also prayed for quashing the order dated 04.08.2009 (annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed in the Misc. Case No. 02/2009 with respect to respondent no. 7. 3. At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far as respondent no. 7 is concerned she has been appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika during the pendency of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only on the suspicion of residence of the petitioner the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without issuing any show cause and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the direction was issued by respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 6 to call Aam Sabha for taking fresh appointment of Anganwari Sevika. 5. On notice, the respondent no. 7 appeared and filed counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner on the basis of forged residential documents applied for that post. Consequently, the certificate was found to be forged with respect to the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled he further submits that the husband of the petitioner is para teacher in the village Kholara whereas the petitioner has applied for the post in the village Birbanda. He further submits that in view of the provisions of 4.9 of Appointment Rule it is reflected that employee of the wife, daughter- in-law and other relatives of any of the government servant will not be appointed in that village. Further submits that the petitioner’s husband is already employed as para teacher in that village, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered on the post of Anganwadi Sevika. In the voter list attached along with the counter affidavit of the respondent no. Further submits that the petitioner’s husband is already employed as para teacher in that village, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered on the post of Anganwadi Sevika. In the voter list attached along with the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 7, the resident of the petitioner shown as the Village Kholara on these facts it is submitted that the petitioner is a resident of village Kholara and for appointment on Anganwari Sevika she made her village Birbanda and as such she is legally not entitled for the post of Anganwari Sevika. 6. Learned G.A. II appearing for the respondents submit that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is evident from the Annexures annexed with the counter affidavit by the respondent no. 7 that the petitioner is not the residents of that village for the appointment as Anganwari Sevika. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied in the case of Smt. Tara Devi vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2013 (3) JLJR 497 paragraph 5 wherein it is held that the power for removal of the Anganwari Sevika is vested in the Selection Committee which can make such recommendation for removal to the Child Development Project Officer who can issue such order. On perusing the impugned order it transpires that the impugned order has been issued by the Deputy Commissioner and in view of the judgment of this Court rendered in the Case of Tara Devi (supra) has no existence in the eye of law. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the selection committee to pass appropriate order in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off.