Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 575 (JHR)

Tarannum Nisha v. State of Jharkhand

2010-05-06

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order of appointment of the respondent no. 9 on the post of Aanganwari Sevika as contained in Memo No. 122 dated 5.4.2007 (Annexure-3) and has made a further prayer for directing the concerned authorities of the respondents to hold a fresh general meeting of the villagers for the selection and appointment of the Aanganwari Sevika of Pirutola Centre 'within P.S.- Pithoria, District-Ranchi. 3. From the admitted facts, it appears that at the meeting of the Aam Sabha held on 10.12.2006, the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 9 had submitted their respective candidature for appointment to the post of Aanganwari Sevika. While the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she was not a resident of the same village, candidature of the respondent no. 9 was approved and she was appointed to the post of Aanganwari Sevika. The petitioner thereafter, obtained a certificate from the Circle Officer in support of her claim that she being the daughter-in-law, is a resident of the village and on the basis of such support, she filed her objection before the Deputy Commissioner contending that the rejection of her candidature was illegal. On receipt of the petitioner's complaint/objection, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Anchal Adhikari to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. The Anchal Adhikari conducted inquiry on a pre-notified date, in presence of the petitioner as also the respondent no. 9 and also in presence of the Gram Pradhan and other elders of the village. The findings of the Anchal Adhikari/ Inquiry Officer, as contained in his report (Annexure-5), is that though, second meeting of the Aam Sabha was held on 26.12.2006, but no notice was given to the petitioner to appear at the Aam Sabha. Finding has also been recorded to the effect that the petitioner possesses higher educational qualification than the respondent no. 9. On these findings, the Inquiry Officer has made his observations to suggest that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was wrong. Taking advantage of the aforesaid observation made by the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report, and aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 4. Respondents including the private respondent no. 9 have filed their respective counter-affidavits. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. Taking advantage of the aforesaid observation made by the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report, and aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. 4. Respondents including the private respondent no. 9 have filed their respective counter-affidavits. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 and counsel for the State would argue that the instant writ application is misconceived and the petitioner is not entitled to any of the relief (s) claimed by her. It is sought to be explained by the learned counsel that admittedly, upon receipt of the complaint/objection made by the petitioner against the appointment of the respondent no. 9, a second Aam Sabha was held and the date of the meeting of the Aam Sabha was notified by publishing the notice in the local newspaper. Furthermore, an inquiry was also conducted by the Anchal Adhikari to look into the grievance of the petitioner regarding the appointment of the respondent no. 9 whose appointment appears to have been again approved by the Aam Sabha even at its second meeting. 6. Facts which emerge from the documents including the Inquiry Report, are that at the second meeting of the Aam Sabha held on 26.12.2006, the petitioner did not appear, nor offer her candidature, although at the meeting, her husband was one of the persons present, though not as a representative of the petitioner. 7. From bare reading of the procedure laid down under the scheme for appointment of Aanganwari Sevika, it appears that the aspiring candidates are required to appear at the meeting of the Aam Sabha and produce their respective certificates and other documents in support of their eligibility. Apparently, at the second meeting of the Aam Sabha, the petitioner did not present herself. Admittedly, the respondent no. 9 was present and she had produced all the documents in support of her claim of eligibility. Since the date of the proposed meeting of the Aam Sabha was published in advance through notice in the local newspaper and furthermore, the information specifically to the petitioner was conveyed by the office of the CDPO and in• response, the petitioner's husband was present at the meeting of the Aam Sabha, the petitioner cannot possibly reserve any grievance that she was not invited specifically for attending the meeting. 8. 8. From the facts and circumstances, the conclusion which is drawn is that at the meeting of the second Aam Sabha, the petitioner did not offer her candidature and therefore, there was no occasion for the Aam Sabha to consider her candidature. The decision of the Aam Sabha, which has been taken in accordance with the procedure laid down under the scheme, cannot be interfered with. 8. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, and discussions made, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.