Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1716 (JHR)

Tapati Gope v. State of Jharkhand

2012-12-12

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order as contained in Memo no. 283 dated 13th September,2004 (Annexure 6) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara, whereby her appointment as Aganwari Sevika as back as in 1996 has been cancelled without any show cause notice on the ground that proper procedure was not followed at the time of appointment. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the decision of the Government to start a programme for the children in the name and style of “Children Development Project” through out the State at village level, the process of appointment of Aganwari Sevika was undertaken to fulfill the aforesaid purposes of the said project under the Advertisement No.1/1996. The petitioner applied after fulfilling all the requisite qualifications for the said post and was selected as Aganwari Sevika in the meeting presided over by the Child Development Project Officer, Kundahit of the Welfare Department and name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment vide Annexure 2 dated 5th October, 1996. She was offered appointment and petitioner thereafter undertook training and joined the office of CDPO Kundahit, respondent no.4, vide Annexure 3 dated 14th April,1998 and she was asked to serve as Anganwari Sevika in the Anganwari Centre, Sudracchitpur II. The petitioner thereafter continued to discharge her duties to the satisfaction of the respondents without any complaint. Again she was directed to join the training centre, Hazaribagh for ten days Organization Training Course, which she successfully competed and was granted certificates, vide Annexures 4 and 4/1. She has also been granted recognition certificate by the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka, vide Annexure 5 but all of a sudden she was served with the order of cancellation of her appointment under the signature of the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka as contained in Memo No.283 dated 13th September,2004, which has been issued without any show cause notice or opportunity to the petitioner to defend herself. The purported ground for cancellation of her appointment, as it appears from the said impugned order, is that the proper procedure was not followed while making her appointment. 4. The purported ground for cancellation of her appointment, as it appears from the said impugned order, is that the proper procedure was not followed while making her appointment. 4. Counsel for the petitioner, has assailed the said ground also on the basis of the enclosure as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit being the minute of the Anganwari Selection Committee held on 20.2.2006, in which the name of the petitioner was recommended, which was presided by the CDPO and attended by by the Senior Supervisor as well. He also refers to the bottom note therein as per which later on the concerned Mukhia had refused to sign the said document on external pressure as recorded in the said minute. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, in respect of the petitioner, it has also been observed in the said minute that she was found to be most suitable candidate and was selected as Anganwari Sevika and rest persons having serial nos.3,4 and 5 did not fulfill the required eligibility and their candidatures were rejected. On these grounds, it is submitted that the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment is wholly illegal and in violation of the principle of natural justice. 6. Respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the Anganwari Sevika was required to be appointed by the five designated members out of which only two has signed the proceedings being the Child Development Project Officer and the Female Health Supervisor but the Mukhia of the said Panchayat has not signed the proceedings. Therefore, a complaint was made by another candidate, namely, Kalyani Gope and the petitioner's appointment was enquired into and found that it was made without following the proper procedure and as such, the impugned order is wholly proper and legal in the eye of law. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the materials on record. Although, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was called upon to explain but no show cause notice has been annexed to their counter affidavit and the petitioner has categorically denied the same by making averment in the writ application as also in he supplementary affidavit. 8. Although, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was called upon to explain but no show cause notice has been annexed to their counter affidavit and the petitioner has categorically denied the same by making averment in the writ application as also in he supplementary affidavit. 8. From the facts narrated herein-above, it is apparent that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sevika, in which Child Development Project Officer and Female Health Supervisor had fully participated but other the person Mukhia of the Panchayat later on refused to sign the minute, which has also been recorded in the bottom of the said minute as contained in Annexure A to the counter affidavit. 9. Be that as it may, from Annexure 2 dated 5th October, 1996 it appears that the petitioner was informed of her selection and directed to report for her joining on the post of Anganwari Sevika. It further appears that her selection was approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Dumka. It appears that the petitioner undertook training programme of Anganwari Sevika and worked at different places. She has been granted certificate thereupon on recognition of her services by the respondents-authorities and after 8 years of her appointment, the impugned order has been issued without giving her any notice or show cause to enable the petitioner to defend herself. The impugned order of cancellation of her appointment has serious civil consequences. Such an action, on the part of the respondents, is, therefore, wholly arbitrary and in violation of the principle of natural justice, which cannot be sustained in law as well as on facts. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.9.2004 as contained in Annexure 6 is quashed and this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with full consequential benefits. Petition allowed.