Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 622 (JHR)

Agatha Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2011-07-08

N.N.TIWARI

body2011
ORDER N.N. Tiwari, J. 1. I. A. No. 1404/2011 has been placed before this Court under the heading "For Orders". 2. At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to delete the prayer No. 1 made in this writ petition. 3. Permission, as sought for, is granted. 4. When this interlocutory application is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned J.C to G.P-I submitted that this case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Baby Kumari v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2011 (1) JLJR 79 : 2010 (4) JCR 369 (Jhr) and the writ petition itself can be disposed of in the said terms. 5. On the joint prayer of the parties, the writ petition as well as the interlocutory application are taken up together and being disposed of by this order. 6. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Lady Supervisor. It has been stated that the petitioner has been selected for the post of Lady Supervisor for Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka after fulfilling all the eligibility criteria and qualifying in the examination held by the respondents. 7. It has been stated that the petitioner applied for the post of Lady Supervisor in response to the advertisement published in the newspaper "Hindustan' daily, in its edition dated 13.11.2007. Admit card was issued to the petitioner. She appeared in the examination and was selected. A list of 311 successful candidates was prepared. The petitioner's name figured at SI. No. 70. The Divisional Commissioner, thereafter, issued appointment letters to the candidates who were below the petitioner in the panel list. When the petitioner approached the authority, she was informed that appointment letter has not been issued to her as at the time of appointment as Anganbari Sevika in the year 1990, she was below 18 years of age. Some of the aggrieved candidates, who were selected in the examination, but were denied appointment on the said ground, including one Baby Kumari, who had filed writ petition being W.P(S) No. 3810/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court holding that the ground taken for denial of the petitioner's appointment has no relevance and that the respondents cannot deny appointment on the said ground. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court holding that the ground taken for denial of the petitioner's appointment has no relevance and that the respondents cannot deny appointment on the said ground. This Court held that the petitioner was entitled for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor and directed to issue appointment letter to the said Baby Kumari with immediate effect Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by the said decision of this Court. 8. The respondents, though opposed the writ petition, have not denied the aforesaid facts. 9. Having heard the parties, I find that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sewika on 3.9.1990 for Anganabri Kendra Purnakhora, Govindpur, District-Dumka. After completing almost 20 years of service, she applied for the post of Lady Supervisor in response to the advertisement for the said post. According to the decision taken by the Government, 25 % of the total strength of Lady Supervisor has to be filled up by the Anganbari Sewika who is Graduate and has completed 10 years of service as Anganbari Sewika or who is Matriculate and has completed 15 years of service as Anganbari Sevika. The petitioner is a Matriculate and she has completed about 17 years as Anganbari Sevika on the date she applied for the post of Lady Supervisor. The petitioner was allowed to appear in the examination on the basis of her eligibility and fulfilling the required criteria. She has been duly selected for the said post. After her selection, the respondents have raised objection that at the time of her appointment as Anganbari Sewika, she was below 18 years of age and on that basis held that she is not entitled for appointment as Lady Supervisor. 10. In Baby Kumari v. State of Jharkhand. 2010 (4) JCR 369 (Jhr), this Court has held that the petitioner having been selected after due consideration, her appointment cannot be denied on the ground that at the time of appointment on another post she was below 18 years. It has been held that the post of Lady Supervisor is not a promotional post and it is a new appointment and that if the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria for the post of Lady Supervisor, her appointment cannot be denied. 11. The petitioner's case is fully covered by the said decision of this Court. It has been held that the post of Lady Supervisor is not a promotional post and it is a new appointment and that if the petitioner fulfills the eligibility criteria for the post of Lady Supervisor, her appointment cannot be denied. 11. The petitioner's case is fully covered by the said decision of this Court. Since the petitioner has been duly selected and she fulfills all the criteria for her appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor, her appointment cannot be denied on the ground of the alleged flaw in her previous employment. That too, when the said question was never raised while she was working as Anganbari Sewika for more than 17 years. There is, thus, no justification for denial of the petitioner's appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor, for which the petitioner has, admittedly, all eligibility and she has been duly selected. 12. Considering the above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner, if there is no other legal impediment, within two weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 13. The writ petition as well as the interlocutory application stand disposed of. Petition allowed.