Manita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC7 Apr 2026WPC/5691/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sahayika termination; Aanganbari Centre Jalwe; incompetent authority; District Social Welfare Officer Dumka not competent to terminate; power of termination with Child Development Project Officer Ramgarh on recommendation of DDC; Clause-16 guidelines dated 02.06.2006 Letter No. 585; Annexure-7; letter no.1337 dated 10.10.2022; memo no. 293 dated 13.10.2022; fresh Aam Sabha selection; writ petition allowed; termination order quashed; W.P.(S) No. 5691 of 2022; Jharkhand High Court Ranchi; Justice Deepak Roshan; decided 07.04.2026.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the termination order (letter no.1337 dated 10.10.2022 and memo no. 293 dated 13.10.2022, Annexure-7); liberty to the respondents to pursue the matter afresh in accordance with law and the regulations; pending I.A., if any, disposed of. ¶¶24

Manita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the order terminating the petitioner from the post of Sahayika in Aanganbari Centre, Jalwe was validly issued by a competent authority, given that Clause-16 of the guidelines dated 02.06.2006 (Letter No. 585) provides that only the Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh can issue an order of termination on the recommendation of the DDC.

¶¶19

Court's answer

The District Social Welfare Officer is not competent to issue an order of termination of a Sahayika; that power lies with the Child Development Project Officer on the recommendation of the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), and its absence in this case vitiates the termination order.

¶¶20

Ratio / Principle

Since the impugned termination order was issued by an incompetent authority, it is quashed and set aside, with liberty reserved to the respondents to pursue the matter afresh in accordance with law and the regulations indicated.

¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi (Single Judge — Deepak Roshan, J.), W.P.(S) No. 5691 of 2022, decided 07.04.2026: Petitioner Manita Devi, terminated from the post of Sahayika in Aanganbari Centre, Jalwe by letter no.1337 dated 10.10.2022 issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Dumka and approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka (communicated vide memo no. 293 dated 13.10.2022), challenged the termination on the ground that it was issued by an incompetent authority. Per Clause-16 of the guidelines dated 02.06.2006 contained in Letter No. 585 issued by the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Government of Jharkhand, only the Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh can issue an order of termination on the recommendation of the DDC. Respondent-State counsel could not controvert that the DSWO lacked such competence. The High Court accordingly quashed and set aside the impugned termination order, allowed the writ petition, and granted the respondents liberty to pursue the matter afresh in accordance with law and the said regulations; pending I.A., if any, was disposed of.

¶1

2026:JHHC:9893

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5691 of 2022

¶3

Manita Devi, aged about 35 years, wife of Rohit Layak, resident of village Jalwe, P.O. Tharihat, P.S. Ramgarh, District-Dumka, Jharkhand. …. Petitioner(s)

¶4

-VERSUS-

¶5

The State of Jharkhand.

¶6

The Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand.

¶7

The District Social Welfare Officer, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand.

¶8

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka, P.O. and P.S. Dumka, District-Dumka, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh, Jharkhand.

¶10

…..Respondent (s)

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶12

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.C. Mishra, Adv For the Resp.-State : Mr. Anish Kr. Mishra, A.C. to Sr. S.C.-I

¶13

12/07.04.2026

¶14

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

2. In the instant writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of letter no.1337 dated 10.10.2022 and memo no. 293 dated 13.10.2022 (Annexure-7 of this writ application) issued by the 3^rd Respondent; whereby the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Sahayika in Aanganbari Centre, Jalwe and order of termination has been approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka and also directed the Child Development Officer, Ramgarh to conduct a fresh Aam Sabha and select new Sahayika in Aanganbari Centre, Jalwe and the aforesaid

¶16

¶17

2026:JHHC:9893

¶18

order has been given to the petitioner vide memo no. 293 dated 13.10.2022, which is acknowledged to the petitioner on 06.11.2022.

¶19

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this court towards Annexure-7, which is the order of termination, and submits that the same has been issued by a person who is not competent to pass such an order. He further refers to Clause-16 of the guidelines dated 02.06.2006, contained in Letter No. 585 (AnnexureB/1) issued by Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Government of Jharkhand; wherein it has been categorically stated that only the Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh can issue an order of termination on the recommendation of DDC. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order stands vitiated on the ground of issuance by incompetent authority.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the respondent, though opposes the prayer to quash the impugned order and tries to impress this Court on merits of this case; however, he could not controvert the fact that District Social Welfare Officer is not competent to issue an order of termination which lies with the Child Development Project Officer on the recommendation of DDC, which is absent in the case.

¶21

¶22

2026:JHHC:9893

¶23

5. Having regard to the above, the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, liberty is there to the respondents to pursue the matter afresh in accordance with law and the regulation as indicated hereinabove.

¶24

6. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.

¶25

(Deepak Roshan, J)

¶26

07.04.2026

¶27

Amardeep/ Uploaded on 10.04.2026

¶28

Manita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manita Devi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Natho Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prem Lal Mandal Vs State of Jharkhand

Raj Shekhar Jha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madan Pandey Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Transport Department

Lalita Khess Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rabindra Oraon Vs the State of Jharkhand