Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 999 (JHR)

Jaymanti Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2008-08-26

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2008
Order In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for an order for quashing the order dated 11.11.2003 (Annexure-2), whereby pursuant to the directions of the Respondent NO.5 issued on 6.11.2003, a fresh selection process for appointment to the post of 'Anganbari Sevika' has been issued, although the petitioner has already been selected for the aforesaid post. The further prayer has been made by the petitioner to issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the Respondents not to give effect to the impugned order (Annexure-2) and to allow the petitioner to work as 'Anganbari Sevika'. 2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in compliance with the rules and guidelines, issued by the State Government for appointment of the post of 'Anganbari Sevika', a meeting of the 'Amsabha' of the Village Dandarkhurd was held on 18.2.2003. The Selection Committee considered the candidature of the petitioner alongwith other candidates and had selected her, for appointment to the post of 'Anganbari Sevika' at the concerned Anganbari Centre and thereafter forwarded the recommendation to the concerned authorities for issuance of the appointment letter. Despite, such recommendation, the concerned authorities did not issue the appointment letter and the matter remained pending for long. Since the formal approval of the Deputy Welfare Commissioner to the recommendations of the Selection Committee, was not issued within 15 days of the recommendations, the petitioner had deemed that the approval was given and accordingly, she continued to render her services as 'Anganbari Sevika' of the concerned Centre. However, after lapse of more than 9 months the impugned order has been passed for initiating a fresh selection process for appointment to the post of 'Anganbari Sevika' in spite of the fact that the petitioner has already been working in the aforesaid post. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without cancelling the selection of the petitioner, the Respondents could not have issued the impugned Notification. Mr. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that without cancelling the selection of the petitioner, the Respondents could not have issued the impugned Notification. Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in a similar matter, when despite their selection made by the Selection Committee, the appointment letters were not issued, the aggrieved persons had filed a writ petition before this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 3719 of 1998(R) and by order dated 12.8.1999 in the said writ application, this Court had directed the concerned Respondents to provide the petitioners therein, the appropriate orders of their appointment and to allow them to join at their respective centres. Learned counsel submits that the aforesaid order of this Court passed in the earlier writ application was binding in the case of the petitioner also. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, denying and disputing the entire claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the process of selection of candidates for the post of 'Anganbari Sevika' and 'Anganbari Sahayikas' have been laid down and enumerated in the Government Circular No.1129, dated 13.6.1998. In the case of selection of the petitioner purported to have been made by the Selection Committee, several protests were received from the residents of the village who had claimed that the majority of the inhabitants of the village are members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and members of the Backward Community and instead of considering the candidature of any of the candidates belonging to these communities, the selection of the petitioner who belongs to the Forward Community, (Bhumihar by caste) and is a relative of the 'Mukhiya' of the village, has been made. On receipt of such complaints, the administration held an enquiry and it was under such circumstances that the decision was taken to hold a fresh general meeting of the 'Aam Sabha' in order to select a suitable candidate. It is further contended that the selection process for the appointment of the petitioner was totally against the rules of procedure and was not conducted in a fair and undisputed manner. It is further contended that the selection process for the appointment of the petitioner was totally against the rules of procedure and was not conducted in a fair and undisputed manner. The further contention of the Respondents is that the selection of a candidate to the post of 'Anganbari Sevika' is always subject to the approval by the Deputy Development Commissioner and on his failure to grant approval, it is the Director, Social Welfare of the State Government, who is authorized and competent to grant approval. In the instant case, no such approval was given by the Deputy Development Commissioner or by the Director, Welfare Department and furthermore, no letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner. In Para 7 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that no such meeting as required under the prescribed Rules, was held in a regular manner on 18.2.2003 to enable the villagers to participate. Rather, a secret meeting was held on 18.2.2003, without prior information even to the Panchayat Sevaks and the A.N. Ms. and even without the Coram being complete as required under the aforesaid Government Circular, it was declared that the petitioner was selected. 4. It needs to be mentioned here that by an earlier order dated 21.7.2008, the Respondent was directed to place the decision of the Selection Committee and also the guidelines on record and the counsel for the Respondents had sought for time to file a supplementary counter affidavit. Though the learned counsel for the Respondents has not filed any supplementary counter affidavit, but has sought to explain that the copy of the guidelines dated 13.3.1998 relied upon even by the petitioner, has been brought on record on being filed by learned counsel for the petitioner. As regards the decision of the Selection Committee, learned counsel explains that though a copy of the decision could not be obtained and filed but the decision of the Selection Committee may be inferred from the submissions of the petitioner which suggests that the Selection Committee had selected the petitioner's candidature for her appointment. Learned counsel explains further that the enquiry conducted by the respondent Nos. Learned counsel explains further that the enquiry conducted by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 into the complaints received from the inhabitants of the Village, categorically indicate that no meeting of the Selection Committee was held on the scheduled date and time in the open, in order to enable the residents of the village to participate and even without completing the Coram as required under the Rules, the result of the Selection Committee was declared. 5. Though in the counter affidavit of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, specific statements have been made, which goes to suggest that the selection of the petitioner for her appointment to the post of 'Anganbari Sevika' was not made in accordance with the rules of procedures, the petitioner has not chosen to file any rejoinder to the statements by way of her denial. 6. Sub-clauses 6 and 7 of the Government Circular, dated 13.6.1998 a copy of which has been filed by the petitioner, lays down the criteria for selection of candidates for the posts of 'Anganbari Sevika'. As per the procedure and criteria laid down, selection' of candidates should be made from amongst the persons belonging to the community/caste which constitute the majority of the residents of the village. Preference is also to be given to the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and extremely backward community over the candidates belonging to the General category. 7. The specific assertion in the counter affidavit is that the majority of population of the village where the Anganbari Centre under reference in this case has been established comprises of the members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Community. The petitioner belongs to a Forward Community of 'Bhumihars". It is also stated that on enquiry, it has been found that the meeting of the 'Amsabha' (Selection Committee) was not actually held on the date and time originally declared. Rather, a secret meeting was held on that date. The decision was held to select the petitioner at a meeting in which even the Panchayat Sevaks and the A.N. Ms. could not attend and without completing the Coram as stipulated in the Government Circular. Furthermore, no appointment letter to the petitioner was ever issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. The decision was held to select the petitioner at a meeting in which even the Panchayat Sevaks and the A.N. Ms. could not attend and without completing the Coram as stipulated in the Government Circular. Furthermore, no appointment letter to the petitioner was ever issued on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim that she was given regular appointment to the post and therefore, without cancellation of such appointment, no fresh selection process can be initiated. The Rules as laid down in the Government Circular does vest authority with the Director, Welfare Department of the State Government to direct for conducting a fresh selection process for selecting appropriate candidates for the posts of 'Anganbari Sevikas'. 8. In the light of the above discussions and findings, I do not find any merit in this writ application, which is accordingly, dismissed.