Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1084 (JHR)

Kunti Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2013-09-21

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
Judgment Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that her services as Aaganbari Sevika for Madhavpur Centre Panchayat Madhavpur, Chatra has been cancelled by the impugned order dated 20.08.2011, Annexure-3, issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra under the direction of Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra dated 09.08.2011. The same has allegedly been done on the ground that her residential certificate was found to be incorrect and she does not belong to the feeder area for which the centre has been created. In the said order, a fresh Aam Sabha has been directed to be convened. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on the basis of duly constituted Aam Sabha on 18.01.2007, the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Aaganbari Sevika as per Annexure-1. Thereafter, she was issued appointment letter after approval of the provisional appointment vide Annexure-2/1 dated 13.06.2008 by the Child Development Project Officer, Itkhori, district-Chatra. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to Annexure-4 certificate of resident issued by the Circle Officer, Itkhori, district-Chatra states that, she belongs to the village Lamodih which constitutes Aaganbari Centre Madhavpur. As per Annexure-6 brought on record by way of supplementary counter affidavit filed on 11.09.2013, it is submitted that Madavpur Centre is constituted of villages Lambodih, Prithivipur and Madhavpur and the petitioner being the resident of Lambodih with a certificate duly issued by the Circle Officer, Itkhori, district-Chatra fulfills the requirement of residence of feeder area of the said centre. In such circumstances, neither her certificate of residence is incorrect nor the allegation that she does not belong to the feeder area is proper. She had undergone training and had worked for a considerable length of time i.e. for more than three years, but her services have been terminated on 20.08.2011 under the direction of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra, who is not competent to terminate the services of such Aaganbari Sevika. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Tara Devi Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2013(3) JLJR 497 . In such circumstances, the impugned order has been assailed. 4. The respondents were asked to specifically state on the last occasion whether the services of the petitioner as Aaganbari Sevika has been approved by the Competent Authority under the relevant circulars and guidelines prevalent in the respondent department. the State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2013(3) JLJR 497 . In such circumstances, the impugned order has been assailed. 4. The respondents were asked to specifically state on the last occasion whether the services of the petitioner as Aaganbari Sevika has been approved by the Competent Authority under the relevant circulars and guidelines prevalent in the respondent department. Learned counsel for the respondents submits, on instructions, that her selection was duly approved by the Competent Authority i.e. the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra, whereafter, Annexure-2/1 was issued. The respondents have, however, questioned the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that she has certificate of residence issued for educational purpose only by the Circle Officer, Itkhori whereas the requirement was for a residential certificate issued for the purposes of employment specifically. They have justified the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner belongs to the village Lamodih whereas the Aaganbari Centre, Madavpur is in Madavpur Panchayat, district-Chatra. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the relevant materials on records. As would appear from the statements brought on record and recorded hereinabove, the selection of the petitioner as Aaganbari Sevika pursuant to the Aam Sabha held on 18.01.2007 for the Aaganbari Centre, Madavpur resulted in issuance of appointment letter on the same date by the Child Development Project Officer, Itkhori, district-Chatra, which is at Annexure-2. The respondents also admit that her appointment was approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra-cum-Competent Authority whereupon vide Annexure-2/1, the selection letter dated 13.08.2008 was also issued. She was also sent for training. It is also obvious from the conjoint reading of the residence certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Itkhori, district-Chatra along with Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit filed on 11.9.2013 that the petitioner was resident of village Lambodih i.e. the feeder area of Madavpur Aaganbari Centre which comprises three villages i.e. Lambodih, Prithivipur and Madhavpur. The respondents have, however, taken a ground that the said certificate of residence is issued for educational purposes only. 6. Be that as it may, it appears that the petitioner belongs to the feeder area to Madavpur Aaganbari Centre, belonging to the village Lamodih as per by the certificate of the residence issued by the Circle Officer, Itkhori for educational purposes only. On the other hand, the impugned order has been issued upon the direction of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra. On the other hand, the impugned order has been issued upon the direction of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra. In the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Smt. Tara Devi (Supra), it has been held that the Deputy Development Commissioner has got no jurisdiction to remove the Aaganbari Sevika; as such power is vested in the Selection Committee, which alone can make such recommendation for removal to the Child Development Project Officer, who can pass such order. The same view has also been taken in the judgment of one Nilma Mandal which has been referred to in the said judgment hereinabove. The petitioner has also undertaken training and worked for more than three years as Aaganbari Sevika in the Madavpur centre. In the totality facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same has been issued on the basis of the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra who does not seem to have jurisdiction to terminate the services of the Aaganbari Sevika. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed. 7. The petitioner shall be allowed to continue as Aaganbari Sevika for the said centre. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.