Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1283 (JHR)

Putul Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2013-11-27

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
ORDER I.A. No. 3869 of 2013 This interlocutory application has been filed challenging the appointment letter dated 8.4.2013. Since this petition was filed on 23.1.2013 and fresh appointment has been made on 8.4.2013, the present application has been preferred by the petitioner. In view of the averment made in the interlocutory application, this interlocutory application is allowed. W.P.(S) No. 427 of 2013 The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for her appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was selected by the Aam Sabha on 1.9.2012 and thereafter her appointment was kept at abeyance and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court. The District Social Welfare Officer, Godda issued letter dated 22.1.2013 directing initiation of fresh selection. The petitioner preferred I.A. No. 548 of 2013 seeking amendment in the writ petition assailing the order dated 22.1.2013. The I.A. No. 548 of 2013 was allowed on 19.2.2013 and the following order has been passed : "In the meanwhile, any selection of Anganbari Sewika for the Centre in question, shall be subject to the result of the writ petition". 3. Thereafter, a fresh selection process was undertaken and as noticed above by order dated 8.4.2013, one Nisha Devi has been appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevika. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. A supplementary counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under: "9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph Nos. 1 to 3 of the Writ petition it is humbly stated and submitted that it is essential to mention here that previously, the C.D.P.O., Godda, Rekha Kumari Sinha has sworn oath No. 13250. On 21.6.2013 in which para-2 she has falsely stated that she was duly authorized by the competent authority. She was not authorised by D.C. Godda, D.D.C. Godda and D.S.W.O. Godda. As per the provision of The Bihar Practice and Procedure Manual, the statement to be filed in the Court must be duly sanctioned by the Deputy Commissioner. Thus, the deponent Rekha Kumari Sinha's counter-affidavit is against the interest of the Govt. and the District Administration with a mala fide intention to help the writ petitioner. Hence the necessity of the supplementary counter-affidavit arose. …………………………………….. …………………………………….. 12. Thus, the deponent Rekha Kumari Sinha's counter-affidavit is against the interest of the Govt. and the District Administration with a mala fide intention to help the writ petitioner. Hence the necessity of the supplementary counter-affidavit arose. …………………………………….. …………………………………….. 12. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 6 of the writ petition it is humbly stated and submitted that the statement is misconstrued and baseless. In fact Anganbari Center are not constituted on the basis of revenue villages, but they have been formed strictly on the basis of guideline of State Govt. Keeping in view the poverty and 'backwardness of the weaker sections of society, who resides under the centres command area. In the selection of Anganbari Centers, the population of members of ST, SC and extremely Backward people are always kept in mind. Anganbari centres, the people are formed over a population of 1000 people of weaker sections as stated above. There can be more than one Anganbari centre in a revenue village. ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… 16. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 10 of the Writ petition it is humbly stated and submitted that in this para incomplete statements have been given and the report of the higher offices have been concealed. The Block Welfare Officer, Godda has sent his report dated 1-12-12 addressed to the B.D.O. Godda that on 1-12-12 he made local inquiry going to village Moulankitta in presence of local Mukhiya, Member of Panchayat Samittee and villagers. He found that out of 40 children enrolled at the Anganbari centre 35 belonged to Mushar and Paswan by caste and the rest belonged to the O.B.C. In para-3 of the report it has been mentioned that the Anganbari Supervisor Smt. Rekha Jha had previously directed that the Anganbari in question be mentioned as the Aganbari Centre Harijan Tola Moulankitta. Moreover on page No. 11 of the file of the D.W.O. Marked to the D.D.C. Godda, it has been clearly mentioned that the Anganbari Centre in question is situated in Harijan Tola of Moulankitta. The same has been approved by the D.C. Godda also vide Note sheet dated 12-1-13 as appears on page No. 12 of the record. 19. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 13 of the Writ petition it is humbly stated and submitted that the statements are incorrect. The same has been approved by the D.C. Godda also vide Note sheet dated 12-1-13 as appears on page No. 12 of the record. 19. That, with regard to the statements made in paragraph No. 13 of the Writ petition it is humbly stated and submitted that the statements are incorrect. The fact is that the petitioner herself is not the resident of Moulankitta. She is the resident of Mohalla Saketpuri Godda. Her name finds mention in the voter's list of Saketpuri. Her name is not mentioned in the voter's list of Moulankitta. On the other hand Nisha Kumar's name is mentioned in the voter's list of village Moulanakitta Harijan Tola. She has filed the residential certificate also." 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the guidelines issued by the State of Jharkhand has not been followed in the present case and the petitioner who was duly appointed in the proceeding of Aam Sabha has been denied appointment and a fresh process for selection of Anganbari Sewika has been undertaken which is not justified. 7. On a perusal of the documents on record, I find that by order dated 19.2.2013 passed in I.A. No. 567 of 2013 the process for selection of Aanganbari Sewika was not stayed though, an order was passed that the selection of Anganbari Sewika would be subject to the outcome of the present writ petition. Thereafter, the selection process continued and as noticed above, by order dated 8.4.2013 one Nisha Devi was appointed on the post of Anganbari Sewika. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed that the said Nisha Devi belongs to the same place and she also fulfills all educational qualification. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to indicate any irregularities in selection of the said Nisha Devi. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, earlier selection of the petitioner has been not given effect to which is not justified. The learned counsel has failed to indicate any substantial irregularity in the decision by which the proceeding of earlier Aam Sabha was cancelled. I find no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner particularly in view of the subsequent development whereby this Court permitted the selection process to continue and thereafter, one Nisha Devi has been appointed on the post of Aanganbari Sewika. I find no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner particularly in view of the subsequent development whereby this Court permitted the selection process to continue and thereafter, one Nisha Devi has been appointed on the post of Aanganbari Sewika. The writ petition lacks merit and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. I.A. No. 5982 of 2013 As the writ petition is dismissed, accordingly, the I.A. No. 5982 of 2013 is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.