Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1200 (JHR)

Awanti Bala Gupta v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-02

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2014
Order : The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2010, whereby her service as Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled, has approached this Court. 2. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sevika on 12.9.2009 on the basis of her selection as per the guideline of the Government of Jharkhand. After being selected, the petitioner had started discharging her duty. Subsequently, on the allegation of submission of two income certificates containing two different income, the impugned order has been passed. It has been submitted that the impugned order is mere communication by the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra to the Child Development Project Officer, Tandwa apprising that the petitioner's selection as Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled by the order of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra vide order dated 8.5.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been appointed on the basis of the guideline issued by the Social Welfare Women and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi dated 2.6.2006. Under Clause 16 of the said guideline, the provision has been made for cancellation of selection of Anganwari Sevika. The power has been vested with the Child Development Project Officer, who is supposed to pass the order of cancellation after prior approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner. It has been submitted that the order dated 15.5.2010 is mere communication. The order of cancellation of the service of the petitioner has been passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra on 8.5.2010. According to Clause 16 of the guideline dated 2.6.2006, the Deputy Development Commissioner has not been vested with the power to cancel the service of an Anganwari Sevika, rather it has been vested with the Child Development Project Officer, who is supposed to pass such order after prior approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed this aspect of the matter. 5. Heard the parties, perused the record. 6. The Government of Jharkhand through the Social Welfare Woman and Child Development Department had formulated a guideline on 2.6.2006 regarding the service condition, method of selection, process of cancellation of selection of an Anganwari Sevika. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has not disputed this aspect of the matter. 5. Heard the parties, perused the record. 6. The Government of Jharkhand through the Social Welfare Woman and Child Development Department had formulated a guideline on 2.6.2006 regarding the service condition, method of selection, process of cancellation of selection of an Anganwari Sevika. In the said guideline at Clause 16, it has been provided that the Child Development Project Officer will be the competent authority to cancel the service of an Anganwari Sevika with prior approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner. This issue fell for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kanchan Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in 2014 (4) JLJR 2 wherein at paragraph 7 it has been held as follows : 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, it is not disputed that by Circular dated 02.06.2006 issued by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, wherein guidelines for selecting Aaganbari Sevika has been laid down, whereby it has been prescribed that the Aaganbari Sevika must be a permanent resident of the said village in which Aaganbari Kendra is situated and if the Aaganbari Kendra is situated in a village situated in the neighbourhood (Tola) then the appointee should be the resident of the said Tola or neighbourhood so that she can be available amidst the beneficiaries. The residential certificate dated 09.01.2007 has been issued by the office of the Circle Officer, Itkhori, in which, it has been mentioned that the respondent is a resident of village Lambodih and reference has also been made to the record of rights. The Mukhiya of the village has also issued certificate, as per Annexure – 5, wherein it has been mentioned that the respondent No.8 is residing along with her husband, Binod Yadav and family for the past 15 to 20 years. It is not disputed that the village Lambodih, Prithvipur and Mahdavpur are the Poshak Chhetra (Feeder Area) for the Aaganbari Kendra at Madhavpur. The respondent No.8 was selected by the Aam Sabha dated 18.01.2007 in the presence of the Child Development Programme Officer (C.D.P.O), Itkhori and other members and the Resolution of the said meeting has also been signed by the scores of person of the village. The respondent No.8 was selected by the Aam Sabha dated 18.01.2007 in the presence of the Child Development Programme Officer (C.D.P.O), Itkhori and other members and the Resolution of the said meeting has also been signed by the scores of person of the village. It is evident that the respondent No.8 along with five others had filed an application for appointment as Aaganbari Sevika and after scrutinizing the documents, the respondent No.8 was provisionally selected and a provisional selection letter dated 18.01.2007 was issued to her under the signature of the then Child Development Programme Officer (C.D.P.O), Itkhori and thereafter an appointment letter dated 13.06.2008 was issued to her. Admittedly, she has been working as Aaganbari Sevika since 2007. It is noticed that between the issuance of provisional selection letter dated 18.01.2007 and permanent appointment letter dated 13.06.2008, there was a period of more than one and half years and no adverse report was submitted regarding submission of a wrong residential certificate and in fact she continued to work on the post till 2011, which is more than four and half years whereafter, her appointment was cancelled by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra. It is necessary to take note of this fact that the appellant was arrayed as an opposite party in the writ and notice was issued to her but for reasons best known to her she did not appear to contest the aforesaid writ petition. Admittedly the Aam Sabha is the selecting authority of the Aaganbari Sevika and it has been held in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi and Smt. Tara Devi (Supra), as cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No.8 that such power is vested in the Selection Committee, which alone can issue order and make such recommendation of removal of a Aaganbari Sevika by the Child Development Programme Officer. The Deputy Development Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue such order. 7. In view of the said judgment of this Court and the procedure laid down by the Government of Jharkhand dated 2.6.2006, admittedly, the impugned order is not sustainable on the ground of jurisdiction. The Deputy Development Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue such order. 7. In view of the said judgment of this Court and the procedure laid down by the Government of Jharkhand dated 2.6.2006, admittedly, the impugned order is not sustainable on the ground of jurisdiction. The impugned order is mere communication, issued under the signature of the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra addressed to the Child Development Project Officer, Tandwa referring the decision / order dated 8.5.2010, passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra by which the service of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika has been cancelled. The Deputy Development Commissioner has passed the order on 8.5.2010 cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika, who has got no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding cancellation of the service of the petitioner as Anganwari Sevika. Hence, the order dated 8.5.2010 by which the service of the petitioner has been cancelled, as referred in the communication dated 15.5.2010, is not sustainable. The impugned order dated 15.5.2010 is, hereby, quashed. 8. The matter is remanded to the Child Development Project Officer, Tandwa to take a fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner, within a reasonable period, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner in writing. 9. However, vide order dated 13.11.2014, the respondents had been directed to file an affidavit with respect to contradiction in the income of the petitioner. In view thereof, the respondents are at liberty to take into consideration this aspect of the matter while taking the decision afresh. 10. This writ petition is disposed of in the terms indicted herein above.