Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 342 (JHR)

Rimpu Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-05

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER I.A. No. 8611 of 2013 1. This application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 14 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal, which has been filed against the order passed in W. P. (S) No. 488 of 2010 dated 13.09.2013. 2. In view of the reasons stated in paragraph nos. 2 and 3 of the application, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown by the appellant for condonation of delay, therefore, the Interlocutory Application is allowed and delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. L.P.A. No. 398 of 2013 3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by order dated 13.09.2013 passed in W. P. (S) No. 488 of 2010, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, in the meeting of the Gram Sabha held on 06.09.2009, the appellant was selected as Anganbari Sevika. The provisional appointment letter was issued to the appellant however, since the appointment of the appellant was not approved, the appellant approached the Writ Court by filing W. P. (S) No. 488 of 2010. In these facts, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 5. Mr. Ram Kishore Prasad, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the selection of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika is done by the Gram Sabha and since the appellant was duly selected in the meeting of the Aam Sabha held on 06.09.2009, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 13.09.2013 to the Deputy Commissioner (DC) to take a decision in the matter is not correct and therefore, interference is required in the matter. 6. Relying on a judgment of this Court in “Sumati Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors.”, reported in 2010 (4) J C R (Jhr), the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that it is not disputed that the appellant possesses requisite qualification and therefore, the plea taken by the respondents that the claim of a candidate who is possessing higher qualification has been ignored, could not have been considered by the learned Single Judge and the appointment of the appellant should have been approved by the respondents. 7. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent – State of Jharkhand has submitted that since the appointment of the appellant was only provisional and in fact, it was not in terms of the relevant rules and circulars and therefore, by order dated 29.09.2009, the appointment of the appellant has already been cancelled. The learned counsel has further submitted that in terms of letter no. 585 dated 02.06.2006 the appellant should have first approached the Deputy Commissioner before whom an appeal lies. The learned counsel has supported the impugned order dated 13.09.2013 contending that since the appeal would lie before the Deputy Commissioner, the learned Single Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision afresh. 8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties. 9. It is not disputed that the appointment of the appellant was only provisional. The appellant herself has stated in paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the memo of appeal that a provisional appointment letter was issued to her and her appointment was not approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Palamau. A copy of the appointment letter has also been annexed as Annexure3A to the memorandum of appeal which would also clearly indicate that the appointment of the appellant was only provisional. The respondents have taken a plea that the appointment of the appellant is not in accordance with rules and circulars and therefore, it was cancelled. It has also been stated by the respondents that another candidate who is possessing higher qualification was not considered in the meeting of the Aam Sabha as she could not produce the residential certificate and her case was kept at abeyance. Since candidature of an eligible candidate was not considered by the Aam Sabha in its meeting dated 06.09.2009, only a provisional appointment letter was issued to the appellant. In paragraph no. 5(k) of letter dated 02.06.2006, it has been specifically provided that a candidate having higher qualification would be given preference in the matter of appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika and Sahayika. In these facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner to take a final decision in the matter of selection of Anganbari Sevika. In these facts, the learned Single Judge has rightly remanded the matter to the Respondent No. 3, the Deputy Commissioner to take a final decision in the matter of selection of Anganbari Sevika. A liberty has also been given to the appellant to raise all the contentions including the contention based on a decision of this Court in “Sumati Devi” (supra). We find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that a direction may be given to the Respondent No. 3 – Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to take a decision. Accordingly, the appellant is given a liberty to approach the Respondent No. 3 – Deputy Commissioner, Palamau who will consider the matter and pass the order afresh within a period of 3 months. 11. This Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.