Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 504 (JHR)

Manti Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-15

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has sought cancellation of the appointment of Smt. Bebi Devi as Aaganbari Sevika for the Ward No. 109 of Coal Company, Bilaspur Dhawa, district-Ramgarh and to call for a fresh General Body Meeting for selection of Aaganbari Sevika for the said centre. The such prayer has, however, been made without impleading the said Bebi Devi in the writ petition. 3. The petitioner's claim is that Aaganbari Centre was running without a duly appointed Sevika and the petitioner was also an interested candidate along with Bebi Devi, whose selection was made allegedly by the Village Education Committee. It is stated that the villagers objected in respect of such selection and made representations, vide Annexure-2 and 3 as well. The said person has continued as Aaganbari Sevika for the said centre. The petitioner belongs to the ST Category while Bebi Devi belongs to the OBC Category. This entire selection process, has, therefore, been done without following the procedure and it is wrongly been said that the other candidates have withdrawn their nominations. 4. As per the respondents, the Aaganbari Centre in question comprises the majority population of OBC Category. In the meeting, which was held on 04.08.2011 for selection of Aaganbari Sevika, all other candidates including the present petitioner have withdrawn their nomination except Bebi Devi. The said person holding the qualification of graduate, was unanimously selected in the meeting of the General Body, which were signed by 77 persons for the post of Sevika for the said Centre. It is submitted that the said lady fulfilled the requisite qualification as well. 5. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have also stated that some objections were raised in respect of the meeting held on 04.08.2011 and on the basis of a survey conducted by the Lady Supervisor namely Vijaya Lakshmi, thereafter, it was again found that the OBC class was in majority in the said village. Again on receipt of complaint from the petitioner, the DDC, Ramgarh directed the Circle Officer, Patratu on 08.10.2012 to investigate into the matter, who vide letter dated 17.01.2013 stated that the selection of Bebi Devi has been done in a proper manner as per the guidelines prescribed in the circular dated 02.06.2006. Therefore, there has been no irregularity in the selection process. 6. Therefore, there has been no irregularity in the selection process. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that therefore, the claim of the petitioner is wholly untenable on facts and even on her petition, the investigation, which was carried out by the Circle Officer, Patratu, was found to be baseless and false. Therefore, the petitioner has no claim to seek cancellation of the appointment of the said lady, who has also not been impleaded as private respondent in the instant writ petition. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference in the writ petition for more than one reasons. From perusal of the minutes of the meeting, Annexure-C dated 04.08.2011 to the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the meeting was attended by a large number of beneficiaries and female persons of the said Aaganbari Centre, who unanimously selected the said lady namely Bebi Devi for the post of Aaganbari Sevika, who also has requisite qualification of graduate, in view of the Government Circular Dated 02.06.2006. It is also apparent from the said minutes that all other applicants have withdrawn their applications. It further appears that the said lady belongs to OBC Category, which was the majority population in the said village, which were covered by the Aaganbari Centre in question. On the objection and complaint of the petitioner as well as some other persons, these facts were again inquired into and found to be baseless. The said lady has also not been impleaded as private respondents in the instant writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition has to fail on that count as well. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.