Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 211 (JHR)

Sharda Devi v. State Of Bihar

2001-03-22

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2001
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhya, J. 1. This case relates to engagement and disengagement of Angan Bari Sevikas of centres at Sukaldih and Kalikapur, both within the district of Bokaro. 2. The brief fact of the case shows that after recommendation of Selection Committee, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Angan Bari Sewika in March, 1983 and since then performed duty. Such selection and appointment was made for Kalikapur centre but the centre was changed at Sukuldih by letter dated 12th April, 1984. 3. After seven years of her appointment, a notice for removal was issued on 3rd July, 1990 which she challenged before this Court in CWJC No. 1140/90(R) and war allowed on 15th November, 1990 being without jurisdiction. However, liberty was given to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law. 4. Admittedly, thereafter no step was taken for removal of petitioner, but she was sent back to original centre at Kalikapur by letter dated 2nd December, 1998. This order of change of centre was challenged by petitioner in CWJC No. 3643/98(R), which was dismissed by the Court, vide order dated 6th November. 1999. The Court held that the petitioner had no statutory or legal right to run centre at one or other village and thereby did not choose to interfere with the order of transfer to other centre. 5. After aforesaid decision, the petitioner was removed from performing the duty of Angan Bari Sewika by Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC), Bokaro, which is the reason to challenge who order of removal dated 23rd December, 1999 in the present case. 6. In the meantime, for the same centre (Kalikapur), the 5th respondent. Gayatri Devi (Rajak) was engaged and for the said reason, she was impleaded as a party respondent and was noticed. The 5th respondent has appeared and filed counter-affidavit and a separate counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. 7. From the facts, as stated above, and the enclosures attached to the writ petition, it will be evident that the petitioner raised dispute relating to her transfer to other centre at Kalikapur, as was made vide letter dated 2nd December, 1998, which order was challenged in CWJC No. 3643/98(R). By that date no decision was taken for her removal, nor any removal order was challenged in the aforesaid CWJC No. 3643/98(R). By that date no decision was taken for her removal, nor any removal order was challenged in the aforesaid CWJC No. 3643/98(R). However, in the impugned order dated 23rd December, 1999, at Para 2, the ground of- removal given is that the petitioner challenged the decision of committee dated 16th February, 1999 relating to her removal in CWJC No. 3643/98(R) and the Court having rejected the writ petition, she being removed, which ground itself is non est. 8. Apart from the fact aforesaid, it is not in dispute that the DDC. Bokaro had no jurisdiction to issue order of removal, power being vested with the Selection Committee, on whose decision, the removal order can be issued by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), that too after notice and hearing the parties. 9. In the present case, no such notice for removal of petitioner was given, nor the proceeding of so called Committee dated 16th February, 1999 has been brought on record. The order of termination has also not been issue by the CDPO. 10. The 5th respondent claims to have been appointed in pursuance of decision of Selection Committee dated 25th December, 1999 and by an order of the same date, as contained in Annexures F and G to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. . 11. In the proceeding of the Committee (Aam Sabha) dated 25th December, 1999, the date of intimation to the members has been shown to be 18th December, 1999 i.e., the date when the post was not vacant, as the petitioner was holding the same and having terminated subsequently on 23rd December, 1999. 12. The counsel for the respondent was not in a position to reply as to when such circulation was actually made and how the 5th respondent applied in absence of any notice and circulation. The termination order was issued on 23rd December, 1999, meeting held on 25th December, 1999 and the order of appointment was issued on the same date. The signatories of all the villagers in the meeting belong to same caste and surname RAJAK, like that of the 5th respondent. However, no specific allegation having made against any individual, this court is not giving any decision relating to extraneous consideration. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of termination dated 23rd December. The signatories of all the villagers in the meeting belong to same caste and surname RAJAK, like that of the 5th respondent. However, no specific allegation having made against any individual, this court is not giving any decision relating to extraneous consideration. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of termination dated 23rd December. 1999 of petitioner having issued by respondents without notice to the petitioner, on non est ground; and by an authority who had no jurisdiction to issue such order, the order dated 23rd December, 1999 is set aside. 14. The petitioner stands reinstated as Angan Bari Sewika for Kalikapur Centre. In effect, the 5th respondent is to make room for her and for the said reason, the order of appointment of 5th respondent dated 25th December, 1999 is also set aside. 15. However, the petitioner will not be entitled for any honararium for the intervening period. The writ petition is allowed. 16. Petition allowed.