Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1300 (JHR)

Sarita Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-12-23

SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2014
JUDGMENT SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J. 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.05.2010 by which the respondent no. 6 has been appointed as Aanganwari Sewika for the Kendadih, Pindrajora Centre in her place. Subsequently, she has challenged the order dated 16.04.2010 and 22.04.2010 by which selection as Aanganwari Sewika has been cancelled by way of filing interlocutory application, which was allowed vide order dated 18.11.2014. 2. Heard the parties and perused the document on record. 3. The submission has been made by counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as Aanganwari Sewika for the Kendadih, Pindrajora Centre in view of the decision of Aam Sabha dated 02.09.2009 vide memo no. 514 dated 24.09.2009 and thereafter she started discharging her duty. The submission has been made that a show cause had been issued to the petitioner regarding the fact that she was appointed contrary to the minimum age prescribed under the guideline dated 02.06.2006, which prescribes that a candidate will be eligible to consider for appointment if he or she completes minimum age of 18 years and maximum of 40 years of age. The petitioner on the date of consideration had not attained the age of 18 years and as such the decision to issue show cause to the petitioner for cancellation of selection on the ground that the appointment made to the petitioner was not made in consonance to the condition given in guideline dated 02.06.2006 regarding the minimum age of 18 years and the petitioner had not completed age of 18 years on that due date of consideration. 4. On the said ground, the authorities have issued an order on 22.04.2010 cancelling the selection of the petitioner. 5. After cancellation of selection of the petitioner vide order dated 22.04.2010 the authorities have convened a fresh meeting of general body in which the respondent no. 6 had been appointed vide order dated 08.05.2010 as contained in memo no. 587. 6. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that when she has already rendered her service as Aanganwari Sewika in terms of her earlier appointment and as such she ought to have been given preference in selection as Aanganwari Sewika by virtue of subsequent selection as has been done by a fresh general body meeting. 7. 587. 6. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that when she has already rendered her service as Aanganwari Sewika in terms of her earlier appointment and as such she ought to have been given preference in selection as Aanganwari Sewika by virtue of subsequent selection as has been done by a fresh general body meeting. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the guideline dated 02.06.2006 has been made for the purpose of regularizing the services of Aangabwari Sewika and Sahayika and if any appointment has been made contrary to the terms and conditions of the said guideline, the said cannot be permitted to be continued. The petitioner admittedly on due date of consideration had not completed 18 years of age and as the authorities after coming to know about this, taken a decision to issue show cause notice and thereafter the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled on that ground. 8. The further submission as has been made by the counsel for the respondent-State that in a fresh selection process the candidature of respondent no. 6 was considered and accordingly she had been selected as Aanganwari Sewika of the said Centre. The further submission as has been made by the counsel for the State that there is no provision of granting of any preference with respect to the past service rendered by one of the other Sewikas. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that since the appointment of the petitioner has been found to be contrary to the guideline dated 02.06.2006 and as such her past service deemed to be forfeited and that is the reason the past service rendered by her has not been considered for giving preference in the subsequent selection process. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 has submitted that in the subsequent selection process the respondent no. 6 since had been found more suitable and as such she was finally selected as Aanganwari Sewika. 11. After hearing the parties at length and the fact I find that there is a guidelines of government dated 02.06.2006 which provides at clause no. 7 (Kha) prescribing the minimum age of 18 years and maximum of 40 years for which is mandatory for Aanganwari Sewika. 11. After hearing the parties at length and the fact I find that there is a guidelines of government dated 02.06.2006 which provides at clause no. 7 (Kha) prescribing the minimum age of 18 years and maximum of 40 years for which is mandatory for Aanganwari Sewika. The government has admitted the guideline dated 02.06.2006 governing the rules and regulations and other conditions of service of Aanganwari Sewika and Sahayika and it is on the basis of the guideline the appointment/selection as Aanganbari Sewika is being made. 12. The petitioner on the due date of consideration had not completed the minimum of 18 years of age but however, she was selected and started discharging her duty in view of the selection. The authorities after coming to know about the fact that the selection of the petitioner has been done contrary to the conditions given under clause 7 (Kha) that the petitioner was not possessing the minimum age of 18 years at the time of selection hence show cause was served to her and after being satisfied that the petitioner was not completing 18 years on the due date of consideration the authorities have taken a decision and passed the order on 22.04.2010 cancelling the selection of the petitioner. 13. After cancelling the appointment of petitioner as Aanganwari Sewika, a fresh selection process was started, the respondent no. 6 was selected as Aanganbari Sewika and after being recommended she was directed to perform her duty as Aanganbari Sewika vide order dated 08.05.2010. 14. With respect to the contention of the petitioner that she ought to have been given preference by affirming her selection in my view the petitioner’s selection since had been cancelled on the ground of not possessing minimum age on due date of consideration of selection and subsequently her appointment has been cancelled, it means that the past services rendered by her, if it will be counted, then it will amount to give preference to the petitioner and it will only amounts to reviewing the earlier order dated 22.04.2010 by which her selection has been cancelled on the ground of possessing less age than minimum age as prescribed in guideline dated 02.06.2006. Further, in the guideline, dated 02.06.2006, there is no provision to accord preference on the ground of possessing service already rendered and hence in absence of any clause available in the guideline dated 02.06.2006 no preference can be given to Sahayika, who had already rendered services by virtue of her selection. 15. The respondent authorities have concluded the second selection process in which the general body had taken a decision and found the respondent no. 6 as suitable candidate. The suitability is the subject matter of satisfaction of the committee, who is conducting the selection process. The petitioner has not challenged the selection process. 16 Thus, in the entirety and totality of facts and circumstances, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. 17. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.