Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 996 (JHR)

Shagufta Shahin v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-26

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order Prayer in this writ application has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing/canceling the appointment of the respondent No. 5 on the post of Sevika for the Anganbari Centre at Kankjole-Bartalla in Barharwa Block within the district of Sahebganj and for a direction to the official respondents for fresh selection of Sevikas for the Anganbari Sevika according to the guidelines and instructions issued by the Government of Jharkhand. 2. The petitioner's case in brief is that she is a resident of Village-Kankjole in Barttalla where the Anganbari Centre has been established. A separate and distinct centre named as Kankjole-Bartalla was subsequently created for the area where the petitioner resides. 3. On 10.6.2007 a meeting of the Aam Sabha conducted by the constituents the Block Development Officer, Junior Engineer, Barharwa and two field supervisors of the Anganbari, programme, was held for the selection of candidates for the post of Sevika at the aforesaid Anganbari Centre. The petitioner's candidature alongwith 4-5 other candidates were considered and the petitioner was selected for the post by the Aam Sabha and her name was also recommended by the Aam Sabha for her appointment. However, subsequently on 18.6.2007, the selection process although completed on 10.6.2007, was cancelled purportedly by the orders of the concerned authorities and declaration was given for conducting a fresh selection process on 18.6.2007. Against such declaration, the beneficiaries of the village had protested before the Deputy Commissioner. Pursuant to the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, a fresh selection process was initiated on 28.6.2007. When the selection team comprising of Junior Engineer, Panchayat Sewak and other responsible officers assembled at the Anganbari Centre, the respondent No. 5 and some other candidates had submitted their respective applications but while the petitioner wanted to file her application, she was deprived of the privilege. Her application form was snatched away at the behest of the respondent NO.5. Although on account of the permission granted, the meeting of the Aam Sabha could not be held on 18.6.2007 but the petitioner was surprised that it was subsequently declared that the meeting was actually held and the respondent No. 5 was selected to the post of Sevika in the Anganbari Centre. Although on account of the permission granted, the meeting of the Aam Sabha could not be held on 18.6.2007 but the petitioner was surprised that it was subsequently declared that the meeting was actually held and the respondent No. 5 was selected to the post of Sevika in the Anganbari Centre. Against this, the beneficiaries of the village as well as the Block Development Officer had reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj stating that the meeting could not be held and the declaration of the selection of the respondent No. 5 was not made in accordance with the rules of procedures. Yet, the Deputy Commissioner did not take any steps to cancel the selection of the respondent No. 5 nor has he passed any order on the petitioner's request for conducting a fresh meeting for selection of the Anganbari Sevikas. 4. J.C. to Sr. S.C.-II is present though no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State. 5. From the perusal of the Annexure-5 which is a copy of the letter purportedly issued by the Block Development Officer, Barharwa addressed to the District Programme Officer, Sahebganj, it appears that information was conveyed by the B.D.O. about the complaints received from the beneficiaries of the village in respect of the alleged irregularities and illegalities in conducting the meeting for the selection of the Anganbari Sevikas, it does not appear that any action has been taken by the concerned respondent on the complaints. 6. It was certainly incumbent upon the concerned authorities of the respondents to consider the complaints and to pass appropriate order since the allegations in the complaints related to the purported illegalities in the holding of the Aam Sabha and in the process of selection of the respondent No. 5 to the post of Sevika. 7. Considering the above facts, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj is directed to consider the complaints which were received in respect of the selection process of respondent No. 5 and to pass an appropriate reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of this order. 8. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.