Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 739 (JHR)

Anju Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-15

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that by order dated 20th June, 2013 Annexure-4 issued by the District Programme Officer, Lohardagarespondent4, the C.D.P.O. (Child Development Programme Officer), Kisko, Lohardaga has been informed that the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga has rejected the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as Aganbari Sewika for the centre Nini. According to the petitioner, in the meeting held on 26th February, 2013 in the Aam Sabha, cases of several candidates were considered for selection to the post of Sewika and the Aam Sabha unanimously recommended the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as she was found to be belonging to the Schedule Tribe category, a daughter-in-law married in the said village and was found physically and mentally in good health and she was found to be having qualification of Intermediate in Arts, Annexure-2 series contain her Graduation certificate. Her name is also shown at serial no.334 of the voter list under Kisko P.S., District-Lohardaga. The Block Development Officer, Kisko had also issued caste certificate in favour of the petitioner showing her of Lohra caste belonging to village-Nini. The Circle Officer, Lohardaga has also issued a certificate of residence for the purposes of employment vide Annexure-2/3 dated 14th November, 2011 showing the petitioner as resident of village-Nini P.S. Kisko. 3. In the wake of aforesaid claim of the petitioner, her case has been rejected apparently by the respondents as borne out from the statement made in the counter affidavit that complaint was made by certain villagers in the matter of selection of Sewika in the said centre in the meeting held on 26th February, 2013. The said report is Annexure-A. From perusal of Annexure-C and Annexure-D dated 10th May, 2013 and 8th May, 2013 addressed respectively to the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga by the C.D.P.O., Kisko and by the Female Supervisor to the C.D.P.O., Kisko, it appears that the petitioner was present in the village at the time of inspection by the C.D.P.O. The Female Supervisor has also reported that some villagers alleged that the petitioner stays at Dhanbad, while other villagers have stated that the petitioner earlier used to stay at Dhanbad but after her recommendation she has been staying at Nini village. Based upon these representations, the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the petitioner's proposal for appointment as Sevika which has been conveyed through the impugned letter dated 20th June, 2013 Annexure-4 by the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines of the scheme dated 2nd June, 2006 (Annexure-3) issued by the Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand in the matter of appointment of Aganbari Sewika/Sahayika have not been followed. It is submitted that the decision is to be taken by the Deputy Development Commissioner within a period of 15 days from the recommendation of Aam Sabha and on failing to do, the recommendation has to be forwarded to the Director, Social Welfare, Jharkhand for taking a decision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in W.P. (S) No.4707 of 2007 dated 22nd November, 2012 in support of his contention that violation of the guidelines have been deprecated in the said case by the Hon'ble Court as well. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that on enquiry on the complaint of the villagers, it was found that the residence of the petitioner in the village Nini is not permanent though it is mandatory for Aganbari Sewika to be familiar with the persons of the locality. If she was staying at Dhanbad as alleged she could not have been considered for appointment. The said decision has accordingly been taken by the Deputy Commissioner, therefore no interference is required. 6. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and in view of the aforesaid facts brought on record through the respective pleadings and Annexure enclosed thereto, it is evident that on the one hand in the voter list and in the caste and residential certificate of petitioner, petitioner is shown as belonging to village Nini and she was also unanimously selected as Sewika in the meeting held on 26th February, 2013 on the other hand, it appears that on the complaint of certain villagers an enquiry was conducted by the respondents about the residence of the petitioner; the reports at Annexure-C are not unequivocal. Moreover, the said reports itself shows that the petitioner was found during enquiry in the said village. Some villagers have also stated that earlier she used to live at Dhanbad but she has been living thereafter at the said village. Moreover, the said reports itself shows that the petitioner was found during enquiry in the said village. Some villagers have also stated that earlier she used to live at Dhanbad but she has been living thereafter at the said village. In any case the said enquiry was done behind the back of the petitioner. There are materials on record to show that the petitioner had enough credentials in the matter of certificates of residence and voter list to show that she was resident of the said village of which she has been recommended for appointment as Sewika. It further appears that though recommendation is of 26th February, 2013, but the decision of canceling her proposal is vide letter dated 20th June, 2013 i.e. after four months. Under the circular of 2nd June, 2006 of the respondent Social Welfare Department, the said exercise is to be concluded within 15 days at the level of Deputy Development Commissioner, failing which the list is to be forwarded to the Director, Social Welfare Department. These appears to be a clear reason behind it that no extraneous influence comes into force in the matter of finalization of the appointment of the Sewika/Sahayika in any village center after it has been recommended by the Aam Sabha which is the selection body. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and reasons discussed hereinabove, it appears that at least an opportunity should have been given to the petitioner to place her case before the proposal of her appointment was rejected. 8. In the said circumstances, the impugned order rejecting her proposal for appointment is set aside. Hence respondents are directed to take fresh decision in the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 9. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner.