Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 483 (JHR)

Anita Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2002-04-16

body2002
ORDER Tapan Sen, J. 1. In this Writ Petition the petitioner has made a prayer for quashing the letter dated 28.8.2001. issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Ramgarh, Dumka (Respondent No, 5) under Memo No. 157, whereby and where under the petitioner. Anita Devi. has been ordered to be removed/ disengaged from the post of Aanganbari Sewika, contrary to the prescribed procedures and without giving her adequate opportunity of hearing. 2. According to the petitioner she was selected and appointed as Aanganbari Sewika for the Bhalsumar village upon due recomnendations of the Selection Committee in June 1999 and was issued an appointment letter on 17.6.1999 by the respondent No. 5 (Child Development Project Officer. Dumka). after her appointment the petitioner claims that she was performing her duties to the satisfaction of the authorities and there were no complaints against her. Surprisingly, she alleges that by reason of the impugned letter, dated 28.8.2001, she was removed from her post, upon the orders and direction of the District Programme Officer, Dumka (Respondent No. 4) with immediate effect on the allegation of irregularity committed in her engagement. Photocopy of the letter dated 28.8.2001 is Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. 3. According to the petitioner, the ground sought to be assigned in the im pugned order is irregularity in as much as her appointment was said to be not proper. She says that she is a permanent resident of the concerned village, belongs to a Backward Caste and that she is Teli by caste. She also states that she is a matriculate and has all the requisite educational qualifications. She states that she was appointed by the "Aam Sabha" which is approved by the competent authority. She also says that she got training of an "Aanganbari Sewika" from the Bihar Educational Project, Dumka and a certificate was issued in that respect vide Annexure-6. She claims that she has also contributed to social works and has taken active part tn Literacy Programme for the illiterate and the- underprivileged launched by the District Ad ministration, Dumka and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Deputy Commis sioner -cum- Chair man-cum- Literacy Programme. Dumka for her voluntary con tribution. 4. She claims that she has also contributed to social works and has taken active part tn Literacy Programme for the illiterate and the- underprivileged launched by the District Ad ministration, Dumka and a certificate to that effect was issued by the Deputy Commis sioner -cum- Chair man-cum- Literacy Programme. Dumka for her voluntary con tribution. 4. According to the petitioner, the power to remove an Anganbari Sewika is vested in the Selection Committee and only upon decision of the said Committee, such an order can be issued by the Child Development Programme Officer and that too, after giving Notice and opportunity of hearing. 5. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. it has been stated that the petitioner had been appointed on the post of Sewika for the Bhalsumar "Aanganbari Centre" under the Ramgarh Block, District Dumka, in a General Meeting of the Village held on 22.9.1998 under the Chairmanship of the Incharge, Child Development Project Officer. Ramgarh. The respondents have stated that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of village Bhalsumar and this village is mostly populated by Backward Class people. It has also been stated that one Ahilya Devi was also selected as Sahayika of Bhalsumar Aanganbari Centre and Ahilya Devi was also the daughter-in-law of the said village Bhalsumar. The respondents have stated that both Ahilya Devi and Anita Devi belong to the same family and were Gotnis by relationship and their husbands were own brothers although they lived separately but both belong to the caste of Telis. 6. These respondents have stated that one Khiro Devi had made a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner. Dumka. relating to the alleged wrong selection of Anita Devi as Sewika and Ahilya Devi as Sahayika. This Khiro Devi, according to them, had also applied for the post of Sewika but her case was not considered in the General Meeting. The respondents have said this matter was enquired into by the District Welfare Officer, who made an inquiry and submitted his report to the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, vide letter dated 20.6.2001. as contained at Annexure-A. According to the inquiry report, Khiro Devi was a Dom by caste and living below the poverty line, whereas the petitioner was owner of a Rice and Chura Mill and belonged to a well off family. 7. Subsequently, on 11.7.2001. the District Programme Officer. Dumka. wrote a letter to the Incharge. as contained at Annexure-A. According to the inquiry report, Khiro Devi was a Dom by caste and living below the poverty line, whereas the petitioner was owner of a Rice and Chura Mill and belonged to a well off family. 7. Subsequently, on 11.7.2001. the District Programme Officer. Dumka. wrote a letter to the Incharge. Deputy Collector. Confidential Section. Dumka, informing inter alia, that both Anita Devi (Petitioner) and Ahilya Devi belonged to the same family. 8. A similar matter fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Smt. Sarda Devi v. state of Bihar. 2001 (1) JLJR 237 . In the aforementioned judgment it has. inter alia, been held that the power of removal of an "Aaganbari Sewika" is vested with thr Committee and it is only with the decision of the Selection Committee that an order of removal can be issued by the Child Development Project Officer and that too, after notice and hearing the parties. 9. In the instant case, the order of removal, as contained at Annexure-2. appears to have been issued abruptly and it reads as follows:-- mijkso"k;d ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh] nqedk ds i=kad 412@ft-izks- fnukad 18-8-2001 ds }kjk] vkaxuckMh lsfodk dsUnz Hkkylqej ls vkidk p;u esa vfu;ferrk ik;s tkus ds dkj.k in ls p;u eqj fn;k x;k gS A lkFk gh dk;kZy; ls izkIr lkekxzh dks ifj;kstuk dk;kZy; esa okil dj nsa A ;g vknsk rRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw gksxk A 10. Thus, it appears that there is no decision of the Selection Committee, nor has the petitioner been given any Notice of hearing before the order had been passed. In that view of the matter and for reasons stated above, the impugned order having not been issued by the Selection Committee and having not afforded the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, the same is hereby, set aside. 11. Additionally, another reason why the impugned order cannot be sustained is because the impugned order does not say what were the irregularities. Mere vague statement that her appointment was irregular and that too without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner amounts to an act which is irrational and illegal. 12- The impugned letter dated 28.8.2001 is hereby set aside and the petitioner stands reinstated. It goes without saying that the Selection Committee may take a decision in accordance with law. 13. 12- The impugned letter dated 28.8.2001 is hereby set aside and the petitioner stands reinstated. It goes without saying that the Selection Committee may take a decision in accordance with law. 13. With the aforesaid observations and directions this Writ Petition is allowed.