Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 970 (JHR)

Durga Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2009-07-14

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2009
JUDGMENT Heard the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue as Anganbari Sevikas, since they were appointed after being selected in the Aam Sabha held for that purpose. The grievance of the petitioners is that their appointment has wrongly and illegally been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner on flimsy ground and further that the respondent nos. 7 and 8 have wrongly and illegally been appointed in their place. According to the petitioners, in the meeting of Aam Sabha, they were duly selected and thereafter they were appointed and, therefore, their appointment could not have been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. According to the petitioners, after their appointment, they were also sent for training. A counter affidavit was filed by the respondent no. 2 and 5 duly sworn by the District Welfare-cum-District programme Officer, Jamtara, wherein, in paragraph nos. 18 and 19 it has been stated that the appointment of the petitioners as Anganbari Sevika was the result of a conspiracy of the then Child Development Project Officer, Narayanpur, who illegally changed the names actually selected candidates, i.e. Smt. Pratima Kumari and Smt. Saffeza Begam, i.e. respondent nos. 7 and 8 and in their place the names of the petitioners were inserted. On receipt of the complaint, regarding the action of the C.D.P.O., the Deputy Commissioner ordered for an enquiry into the matter and on enquiry, the allegation in that regard was found to be correct and, therefore another general meeting was called for the selection of Anganbari Sevika, and in the said meeting, the respondent nos. 7 and 8 were unanimously selected for being appointed as Anganbari Sevikas. In the second counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 2 sworn by one Ranjit Prasad Saw, said to be the Project Officer, Meso Area-cum-District Programme Welfare Officer, Jamtara and in paragraph no. 6 it has been stated that the grievance of the petitioners was looked upon and enquired and it was found that no such irregularity was committed by the C.D.P.O. while appointing the petitioners namely Durga Devi. 2 sworn by one Ranjit Prasad Saw, said to be the Project Officer, Meso Area-cum-District Programme Welfare Officer, Jamtara and in paragraph no. 6 it has been stated that the grievance of the petitioners was looked upon and enquired and it was found that no such irregularity was committed by the C.D.P.O. while appointing the petitioners namely Durga Devi. In view of the contradictory stand taken in the first counter affidavit and second counter affidavit, this Court by order dated 14/05/2009 directed to submit a clear and unambiguous affidavit by the Secretary, Department of Welfare, government of Jharkhand, Ranchi or by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Secretary. Pursuant thereto, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary, Department of Welfare, government of Jharkhand duly sworn by the Deputy Secretary of the said Department. In the aforesaid counter affidavit in Paragraph-7, it is stated that a general meeting (Aam Sabha) was held on 10/05/2001 and the petitioners were selected as Sevikas in the Anganbari Kendra at Sabanpur, and was sent for necessary training. In Paragraph-8, it is stated that on a complaint submitted by Mrs. Pratime Kumari wife of Anil Kumar Gupta and by one A. Rashid of village Dharampur regarding irregularities committed in the selection of Mrs. Durga Devi, officer In-charge, Public complaint Cell Jamtara directed the C.D.P.O., Narayanpur vide letter No. 27 dated 24/07/2003 to enquire about the issue involved in the matter and submit a report. It is said that after examining the matter, the enquiry report was submitted by the C.D.P.O., Narayanpur, and on consideration of the same, the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara ordered for a fresh general meeting for the selection of Anganbari Sevika. It has further been stated that the general meeting was held on 03/09/2009 with full quorum of the Selection Committee, and in the said meetinng, the petitioner Durga Devi as well as Pratime Kumari respondent no. 7 were also present and in the said meeting the villagers unanimously voted for the selection of Pratima Kumari and, accordingly, Pratima Kumari was selected for the post of Sevika of Anganbari, Sabanpupr. From this statement made by the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, it appears that the concerned Deputy Commissioner, after having found some irregularity in the selection of the petitioners, ordered for holding of fresh Aam Sabha and in that Aam Sabha, the respondent no. From this statement made by the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, it appears that the concerned Deputy Commissioner, after having found some irregularity in the selection of the petitioners, ordered for holding of fresh Aam Sabha and in that Aam Sabha, the respondent no. 7 Pratima Kumari as well as the respondent no. 8 Shafeeja Begam were selected and appointed as Sevikas for their respective villages. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the respondent State took two contrary stands in their two counter affidavits. In one of the counter affidavit it was sta6ted that the selection of the petitioners has been made in Aam Sabha was found to be without any irregularity, whereas in the other counter affidavit, the same has been stated to be based on irregularity committed by the C.D.P.O. and, therefore, in such a situation, the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioners as Sevikas by the Deputy Commissioner is illegal. After hearing the parties and after going through the pleadings made in the counter affidavit and in the writ petition, I find that in view of the specific statements made by the Secretary, government of Jharkhand, in his third counter affidavit that after the irregularity was detected in selection of the petitioners as Anganbari Sevikas, the Deputy Commissioner ordered for holding the general meeting (Aam Sabha) and in the General Meeting the respondent nos. 7 and 8 were selected/appointed as Sevikas for their respective villages and, as such, I find no illegality or irregularity in the appointment of the respondent nos. 7 and 8. Accordingly, having found no merit, this writ application is dismissed.