Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 374 (JHR)

Fullora Ghosh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-03-10

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 7435 of 2012, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein was dismissed, the appellant has approached this Court by filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. From perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the appellant had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7435 of 2012 seeking quashing of the order dated 12.09.2012, whereby one Smt. Chaina Mandal was appointed as Anganwari Sevika by the Child Development Project Officer, Kundahit. The appellant belongs to backward community and she comes within the category of Below Poverty Line family. The appellant had acquired qualification of B.A. PartI at the time of selection. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that in the meeting of the Aam Sabha, the higher qualification of the appellant was not considered and respondent No.7 namely Smt. Chaina Mandal, who is simply having qualification of Intermediate, has been selected and her selection was approved by the Child Development Project Officer, Kundahit. It is further submitted that the minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika is Matriculation, in which, the appellant has secured more marks than respondent No. 7 and, therefore, her candidature should have been accepted and approved by the Child Development Project Officer, Kundahit. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that B.A. PartI cannot be treated as a higher qualification. The appellant and the respondent No. 7 both have acquired Intermediate degree and since the respondent No.7 was selected by the Aam Sabha having secured more marks than the appellant, the respondent No. 7 was validly appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika. 6. We find that the learned Single Judge has recorded that even in the Intermediate examination, the appellant secured 250 marks whereas, the respondent No. 7 had secured 276 marks. Admittedly, the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika is matriculation and it has nowhere been provided that selection can not be made taking into consideration the marks obtained in the Intermediate examination. Admittedly, the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika is matriculation and it has nowhere been provided that selection can not be made taking into consideration the marks obtained in the Intermediate examination. We further find that the learned Single Judge has also taken note of the fact that B.A. Part-I can not be considered to be a higher qualification and the appellant had not acquired the Bachelor of Arts degree at the time when the selection was made. 7. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no substance also in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that since the appellant has acquired degree of Intermediate in Science whereas the respondent No. 7 is Intermediate in Arts only, therefore, preference should have been given to the appellant. We do not find any materials on record in the form of Guidelines or Rules, which provides that a person, having a degree of Intermediate in Science should be given preference to the person, who is an Intermediate in Arts. It appears that the villagers in the Aam Sabha unanimously took a decision to select the respondent No.7. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 7435 of 2012. Accordingly, confirming the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed.