Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 457 (JHR)

Soni Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-03-26

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT : Grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is against the order of cancellation of her appointment which was given to her on the post of Anganbari Sahayika. Such cancellation, according to the petitioner, was made in violation of the principle of equity and natural justice in as much as no prior notice was issued to her nor any opportunity of being heard was given to her prior to issuance of impugned order of cancellation. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent State. 4. From the facts of the petitioner’s case as appearing in the writ application as also from the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that an Aam Sabha was held for the selection of a suitable candidate for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sahayika. Besides the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 was also one of the aspirants/candidates. At the conclusion of the proceedings of the Aam Sabha, the petitioner was informed that she was selected and appointment letter was issued to her, pursuant to which, she had joined the post and started working as Anganbari Sahayika. Subsequently, by the impugned order, her appointment was cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without giving any notice and without explaining any ground whatsoever as to why her appointment was cancelled, the respondent authorities have treated her in a most arbitrary and discriminatory manner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, would submit that a complaint was received from the members of the village alleging impropriety in the manner in which the petitioner was selected and appointed. The complaint was enquired into by the B.D.O. who had confirmed that the Aam Sabha had actually selected the respondent No. 6 but the Presiding Officer of the Aam Sabha, by abuse of his authority, had declared the selection of the petitioner instead of respondent No. 6 and even proceeded to get the appointment letter issued to the petitioner illegally. It was on receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled by the impugned order and therefore, the respondent No. 6 was appointed. 6. It was on receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner’s appointment was cancelled by the impugned order and therefore, the respondent No. 6 was appointed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that though the above may be the oral statements of the counsel for the respondents, but the counter affidavit does not claim that the petitioner’s name was not recommended by the Aam Sabha or that the petitioner’s name was arbitrarily selected by the Presiding Officer. 7. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents as also from the counter affidavit, it does transpire that before cancellation of the petitioner’s selection and appointment, no prior notice was served upon her and neither was she given any opportunity whatsoever to explain as to why her appointment should not be cancelled. The cancellation of the petitioner’s appointment in such a manner is certainly against the principles of equity and natural justice and cannot be sustained. 8. Finding merit in this writ application, the same is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.2007 is hereby set aside. The respondents shall however be at liberty to take any appropriate decision as they may choose in their discretion in respect of the selection and appointment of the petitioner but such decision shall be taken only after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 of being heard. The decision in this regard must be taken by the concerned authorities of the respondents within two months from the date of this order and the same must be effectively communicated to the petitioner within the time stipulated. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the respondent State.