Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 490 (PAT)

Sanju Kumari v. State Of Bihar

2004-04-29

NARAYAN ROY

body2004
Judgment 1. Heard, counsel for the parties. 2. This writ application is directed against the order as contained in Annexure 8 issued vide memo no. 163 dated 29.1.1999 and also the consequential order as contained in Annexure 8/1 whereby and whereunder appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika has been cancelled and respondent no. 8 has been directed to be appointed in her place. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being Bahoo of Ramjivan Bigaha centre applied for her appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika along with others. In the general body meeting, cases of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 8 and others were considered and finally she was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika and vide order as contained in Annexure 2 dated 13.12.1997 she was appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevika. While the petitioner was working on the post as such, a show cause notice was served upon her by the Director, Social Welfare dated 31.12.1997 to show cause as to why her appointment should not be cancelled as certain irregularities have been committed in her appointment. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice and the authorities ultimately cancelled her appointment by the order impugned. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner was B.A. (Hons.) whereas respondent no. 8 was simply graduate and the same would be evident from their respective applications. It is also submitted that applications of respondent no. 8 though was taken into consideration but the same was rejected as she was having lesser qualification than the petitioner and only on the basis of certain pairvi made by influential persons the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled to accommodate respondent no. 8. 4. J.C. to S.C. 8 appearing on behalf of the State, with reference to the counter affidavit, however, submitted that on enquiry, it was found that responent no. 8 has passed B.Sc. (Hons.) examination in June, 1998 and she was Bahoo of Ramjivan Bagaha tola whereas the petitioner is Bahoo of Hargovind Bigaha and, therefore, a preference was given to the case of respondent no. 8 as per the rules and consequently thereof, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. 5. From the counter affidavit, it is manifest that distance of Ramjivan Bigaha tola and Hargovind Bigaha is hardly ten feet. 8 as per the rules and consequently thereof, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. 5. From the counter affidavit, it is manifest that distance of Ramjivan Bigaha tola and Hargovind Bigaha is hardly ten feet. It appears to be an adjacent tola and both tolas are bifurcated by a narrow lane. It is also evident from the counter affidavit that at the time of filing of the application, respondent no. 8 was not Honours graduate as she passed B.Sc. (Hons.) examination in June, 1998 whereas applications forms were filed in the year 1997 itself. Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 8 reiterated the same stand as taken by learned counsel for the State. In this case l had called for the entire records. Records have been produced From the records it appears that the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no. 8 applied for the post of Anganbari Sevika for Ramjivan Bigaha centre. The petitioner, as it appears from her application form applied in the prescribed proforma giving her all details even about her educational qualifications. As regards educational qualification, she has mentioned that she is B.A. with Political Science honours. So far respondent no. 8 is concerned, she has stated about her educational qualification as simple B.A. From the application form of the petitioner, it appears that the selection committee recommended her case as she was possessing a qualification of B.A. (Hons.) whereas the committee did not recommend the case of respondent no. 8 as she was having lesser qualification. From the application of respondent no. 8 it also appears that she had not personally appeared before the selection committee whereas the petitioner had appeared. 6. From the materials available on record vis-a-vis the application filed by respondent no. 8 and the petitioner, it appears that the application form filed by the petitioner was found to be in order. l do not find any material on record to show that any irregularity whatsoever was detected in selection of the petitioner for Ramjivan Bigaha centre as the village Hargovind Bigaha of which she is said to be the Bahoo, is bifurcated only by ten feet from the centre in question. The petitioner, thus, has preferential right over respondent no. 8 as she was better qualified than respondent no. 8. The petitioner, thus, has preferential right over respondent no. 8 as she was better qualified than respondent no. 8. The subsequent action of the authorities concerned, therefore, is held to be contrary to the provisions of law. 7. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, the order impugned as contained in Annexure 8 and consequential order as contained in Annexure 8/1 are held to be wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and without jurisdiction. 8. In this result, this application is allowed. Orders impugned as contained in Annexure 8 and 8/1 are set aside. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated on the post of Angabari Sevika in the centre in question with all consequential benefits. 9. Entire records, called for, are being handed over to J.C. to S.C. 6.