JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned S.C. (L & C)-III, appearing for the respondent-State. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondent to reinstate her to the post of Sevika for Tunudag-II Minor anganbari Kendra at Naudiha Bahera Panchayat under Panki Block in Palamau District. Further prayer has been made for quashing of Memo No. 56 dated 04.04.2017 issued by Child Development Project Officer, Panki with respect to selection of Aanganbari Sevika to the extent of Tunudag-II Minor Aanganbari Kendra at Naudiha Bahera Panchayat under Panki Block in Palamau District. 4. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner was selected as Sevika for Tunudag-II Minor Aanganbari Kendra at Naudiha Bahera Panchayat under Panki Block in Palamau District. The appointment letter was issued in her name by Child Development Program Officer, Panki at Palamau vide Memo No. 228 dated 30.09.2009. She has undergone training at Aanganbari Worker’s Training Centre at Chotanagpur Craft Development Society, Loherdaga from 09.11.2009 to 10.12.2009. She was provided certificate for completion on 10.12.2009. He further submits that thereafter, the petitioner started running Tunudag-II Aanganbari Kendra and discharged her duties. She has managed the Aanganbari Kendra without any sort of dispute. He further submits that all of a sudden, Child Development Program Officer, Panki vide Memo No. 56 dated 04.04.2017 passed order for fresh Aam Shabha for selection of Sevika, Sahayika. He further submits that without any notice or show-cause, petitioner has been terminated and no reason assigned for such decision. 5. Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned S.C. (L & C)-III, appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner remained absent from duty deserting her Aanganbari Centre at Tunudag-II of Panki P.S., District- Palamau. He further submits that as a matter of fact the husband of the petitioner declared her a fugitive and traceless. 6. Jayant Franklin Toppo, learned S.C. (L & C)-III, appearing for the respondent-State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. The petitioner remained absent from duty deserting her Aanganbari Centre at Tunudag-II of Panki P.S., District- Palamau. He further submits that as a matter of fact the husband of the petitioner declared her a fugitive and traceless. 6. In later part of para-5 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that in such view of the matter and under such back-drop situation the prayer of the petitioner to reinstate her and permit her to work is pending for administrative consideration and necessary orders of the respondent. 7. In view of above circumstances and considering the submission of the learned counsel for the parties particularly, looking into the averment made in counter-affidavit with regard to consideration of case of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the concerned respondent to take decision in the light of statement made in counter-affidavit within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If required, the petitioner may be called by the authority and petitioner will co-operate with the authority. 8. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.