JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order of Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar as contained in Memo No. 76 dated 20.02.2009, whereby the selection of the petitioner as Aaganbari Sevika of Nawadih Centre within Panchayat-Basakola, P.S. Jasidih, Deoghar, has been cancelled. 3. Mr. Arbind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Deputy Development Commissioner has no authority or power to cancel the service of Sevika/Sahayika of any Aganbari Centre and it is only the Child Development Project Officer, who is competent authority to pass any order in view of the Government guidelines. He further submits that the petitioner being the daughter of the village was legally entitled for the post of Aaganbari Sevika. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kanchan Devi vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2014 (4) JLJR 2 , wherein at Para 7, this court has held as under:- “7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, it is not disputed that by Circular dated 02.06.2006 issued by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, wherein guidelines for selecting Aaganbari Sevika has been laid down, whereby it has been prescribed that the Aaganbari Sevika must be a permanent resident of the said village in which Aaganbari Kendra is situated and if the Aaganbari Kendra is situated in a village situated in the neighbourhood (Tola) then the appointee should be the resident of the said Tola or neighbourhood so that she can be available amidst the beneficiaries. The residential certificate dated 09.01.2007 has been issued by the office of the Circle Officer, Itkhori, in which, it has been mentioned that the respondent is a resident of village Lambodih and reference has also been made to the record of rights. The Mukhiya of the village has also issued certificate, as per Annexure – 5, wherein it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 8 is residing along with her husband, Binod Yadav and family for the past 15 to 20 years. It is not disputed that the village Lambodih, Prithvipur and Mahdavpur are the Poshak Chhetra (Feeder Area) for the Aaganbari Kendra at Madhavpur. It is not disputed that the village Lambodih, Prithvipur and Mahdavpur are the Poshak Chhetra (Feeder Area) for the Aaganbari Kendra at Madhavpur. The respondent No. 8 was selected by the Aam Sabha dated 18.01.2007 in the presence of the Child Development Programme Officer (C.D.P.O.) Itkhori and other members and the Resolution of the said meeting has also been signed by the scores of person of the village. It is evident that the respondent No. 8 along with five others had filed an application for appointment as Aaganbari Sevika and after scrutinizing the documents, the respondent No. 8 was provisionally selected and a provisional selection letter dated 18.01.2007 was issued to her under the signature of the then Child Development Programme Officer (C.D.P.O.) Itkhori and thereafter an appointment letter dated 13.06.2008 was issued to her. Admittedly, she has been working as Aaganbari Sevika since 2007. It is noticed that between the issuance of provisional selection letter dated 18.01.2007 and permanent appointment letter dated 13.06.2008, there was a period of more than one and half years and no adverse report was submitted regarding submission of a wrong residential certificate and in fact she continued to work on the post till 2011, which is more than four and half years whereafter, her appointment was cancelled by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra. It is necessary to take note of this fact that the appellant was arrayed as an opposite party in the writ and notice was issued to her but for reasons best known to her she did not appear to contest the aforesaid writ petition. Admittedly the Aam Sabha is the selecting authority of the Aaganbari Sevika and it has been held in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi and Smt. Tara Devi (Supra), as cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 that such power is vested in the Selection Committee, which alone can issue order and make such recommendation of removal of a Aaganbari Sevika by the Child Development Programme Officer. The Deputy Development Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue such order.” 4. Relying upon the aforesaid contention and the judgment, Mr. Choudhary prays for quashing of the impugned order and further for a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider his case, on the basis of guidelines of the State Government. 5. Mr. Manoj Kr. The Deputy Development Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue such order.” 4. Relying upon the aforesaid contention and the judgment, Mr. Choudhary prays for quashing of the impugned order and further for a direction to the respondent-authorities to consider his case, on the basis of guidelines of the State Government. 5. Mr. Manoj Kr. III, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State does not have any objection, if the case is remitted back to the respondent-authorities to inquire into the matter and pass a fresh order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the judgment referred to hereinabove and also the averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that the impugned order has been passed by Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar. It further appears that the Government guidelines has been formulated by Ministry of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand for the purpose of governing the service condition of Aaganbari Sevika and Sahayika as also the procedure to cancel their selection. As per the conditions as stipulated in Clause No. 16; the Child Development Project Officer is competent authority to cancel the selection of Aganbari Sevika with prior approval to the Deputy Development Commissioner. Thus, it is clear that the Deputy Development Commissioner has no power to cancel the services of the Sevika/Sahayika of Aaganbari. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts, since the order impugned has been passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner who has got no jurisdiction to do so, hence, the impugned order as contained in Memo No. 76 dated 20.02.2009 is not sustainable in the eye of law and consequently, the same is, hereby, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Child Development Project Officer to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands disposed of.