Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 668 (JHR)

Rehana Khatoon v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-13

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2013
ORDER By the Court. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner appellant was the aspirant for the post of Aanganwari Sewika as she was the second candidate and the respondent No. 8 was given appointment, however she did not join. The petitioner's contention before the learned single Judge was that the petitioner was only the leftover candidate. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant pointed out that the respondent No.8' was in fact given appointment and during the pendency of the writ petition, her appointment was cancelled. It is submitted that in view of the above reasons, the petitioner appellant was entitled to the post in the selection process for which a meeting of the aam sabha was convened on 5th October, 2009. 4. We have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the considered opinion that admittedly, the aam sabha selected the respondent No.8 in its meeting held on 5th October, 2009 and she was appointed on the post. According to the petitioner appellant, though the respondent No. 8 joined but her appointment was cancelled. The learned single Judge has observed that though the petitioner was the second candidate but she was not a selected candidate as there is difference between a second candidate in the process of selection and a second selected candidate or a candidate in the waiting list. So far as this finding is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly observed so. 5. Subsequent to that, during the pendency of the writ petition, a fresh aam sabha was called on 17th July, 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant could not show us what was the result of the aam sabha but admittedly, the petitioner did not apply for appointment for the same post in the second selection process. Therefore, there appears to be reasons to draw adverse inference that either the petitioner herself was satisfied that she was not entitled to appointment or some other person has been given appointment. 6. Be that as it rimy be, for the reasons stated in the impugned judgment dated 25th July, 2012, we are of the considered opinion that in the LPA jurisdiction, no case is made out for our interference. Hence, this LPA is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.