Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 791 (JHR)

Malti Patar v. State of Jharkhand

2012-06-13

D.N.PATEL

body2012
ORDER By this Court - The present petition has been preferred mainly against the termination of the services of the present petitioner as Anganbari Sevika by an order at annexures to the memo of petition which has been passed by the respondents on 18.10.2011. 2) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had applied for the post of Anganbari Sevika. Thereafter the petitioner was selected and she was also appointed and she served for 11 months and thereafter her services has been terminated by an order dated 12.08.2010 and thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal and the said order of termination dated 12.08.2010 was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure8). It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is belonging to Yadav community which is majority of caste in Village Sulunga, whereas respondent No.7 is not belonging to majority caste. However, so far as marks in matriculation examination are concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that marksheets of both the petitioner and respondent No.7 were produced before the Selection Committee and and it was found that the petitioner obtained 51% of marks and respondent No.7 obtained 53% of marks and even then the petitioner was selected and therefore now this reason cannot be advanced that the petitioner has secured only 51% of marks whereas respondent No.7 has secured some higher marks. 3) I have heard the learned counsel for both sides. 4) Counsel for the respondents has submitted that both the candidates, i.e. the petitioner and respondent No.7, are belonging to O.B.C. Category and as per the policy of the respondents State, which is annexed as Annexure4 to the memo of petition, if the other conditions are equal, then the marks obtained in Matriculation examination will be appreciated. It is fairly submitted by the State that even as per the report of the Selection Committee which is at annexure1 to the memo of petition, candidate securing more marks should be appointed. It is fairly submitted by the State that even as per the report of the Selection Committee which is at annexure1 to the memo of petition, candidate securing more marks should be appointed. 5) Be that as it may, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that to evaluate such type of grievances, the respondents have constituted a committee namely Anushravan Committee and the said committee has decided that there is an error in the appointment of the petitioner and on the basis of the report of the Committee, the further opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. Looking to the report of the Anushravan Committee and looking to the fact that the petitioner has secured lesser marks in Matriculation, the respondent No.7 is to be appointed instead of the petitioner and therefore detailed order was passed at Annexure5 which was also confirmed in Annexure8 by the appellate authority 6) Having heard both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this application mainly for the following grounds: (I) The petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika for the village Sulunga, District – Jamtara. After being appointed, complaints were made against her appointment and to resolve this type of complaints, the State Government constituted 'Anushravan Committee' and after inquiry the Committee reported that there is an illegality in the appointment of the petitioner as the petitioner and respondent No.7 are similarly situated candidates but the respondent No.7 has secured higher marks than that of the petitioner in Matriculation examination. The decision has been taken in pursuance of a policy decision of the respondents State which is at Annexure4 to the memo of petition and as per Clause V(Chha), such decision has been taken. It further appears from the facts of the case that an order was passed at annexure5 to the memo of petition by the Child Development Project Officer on 12.08.2010 and it was confirmed in the appeal preferred by the petitioner by an order dated 18.10.2011 passed by the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara. Thus, two opportunities of being heard were given to the petitioner. (II) It was contended that the petitioner belongs to the caste which has majority in the village concerned i.e. Village Sulunga. Thus, two opportunities of being heard were given to the petitioner. (II) It was contended that the petitioner belongs to the caste which has majority in the village concerned i.e. Village Sulunga. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner belonged to Yadav community which is in majority in the village Sulunga and therefore the petitioner should have been appointed. On a query raised by this Court as to how the petitioner belongs to Yadav community and where is the census detail to support his contention that Yadav community is in majority in the village concerned and where is the law that only a member from the majority should be appointed in Government services, no justifiable reply has been advanced by the counsel for the petitioner and in absence thereof, mere assertion without any prima facie evidence is not accepted by this Court. 7) In view of these facts and I see no reason to entertain this writ application for appointment of the of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika in the Village Sulunga within the district of Jamtara. 8) In view of these facts, there is no substance in the writ application. Hence, the same is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.