Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1416 (JHR)

Namita Pramanik v. State of Jharkhand

2016-09-26

H.C.MISHRA

body2016
ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent State. 2. The petitioner was selected for being appointed as Sahayika in Anganbari Center, Boram, pursuant to an Aam Sabha of the village held on 9.2.2013. The selection of the petitioner was also recommended for approval by the competent authority. The selection of the petitioner was, however, not confirmed, in spite of representations given by the petitioner. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State, in which, it is stated that by letter dated 17.12.2013 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, the Child Development Project Officer, Patamda, District East Singhbhum, recommended for holding the Aam Sabha afresh, upon the request of the villagers, and on that basis, by the order has been issued by the District Welfare Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, as contained in Memo No. 591 dated 15.4.2015, whereby the selection of the petitioner and other persons as Sevika and Sahayika were canceled. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. An enquiry report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Boram, through his letter dated 8.5.2015, has also been brought on record as Annexure-F to the counter affidavit, which shows that the selection of the petitioner was made after following all the procedures and there was no illegality in her selection as as Sahayika in Anganbari Center, Boram. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the enquiry report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Boram on 8.5.2015, which has been brought on record as Annexure-F to the counter affidavit, it is apparent that there was no illegality in the selection process and as such, the order, which has been brought on record as Annexure-G to the counter affidavit, whereby, the selection of the petitioner has been canceled, is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and the same is fit to be quashed. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the selection of the petitioner was canceled, in view of the report of the Child Development Project Officer, Patamda, as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, in which, he had made recommendation for not approving the selection of the petitioner and holding the Aam Sabha afresh and pursuant thereto, the order bearing Memo No. 591 dated 15.4.2015 has been issued, cancelling the selection of the petitioner. It is submitted that the report of the Block Development Officer, Boram was submitted after issuance of the order dated 15.4.2015 and accordingly, the same could not be taken into consideration. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for both sides and upon going through the record, I find that even if it is accepted that the selection of the petitioner has been canceled on the basis of Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, submitted by the Child Development Project Officer, Patamda, but Annexure-C does not reflect any illegality in the selection process of the petitioner. It only states about the fact of the selection and recommends that a fresh Aam Sabha be held in view of the request of the villagers. There is no whisper in the letter to show that the selection of the petitioner was in any manner illegal or irregular. 7. In that view of the matter, as also in view of the report of the Block Development Officer, Boram, through his letter dated 8.5.2015, the order dated 15.4.2015, brought on record as Annexure-G to the counter affidavit, cancelling the selection of the petitioner, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the selection of the petitioner as Sahayika in Anganbari Center, Boram, could not be cancelled only on the request of the villagers to hold the Aam Sabha afresh, which cannot be a ground for cancellation of selection of a candidate, otherwise duly selected. 8. Accordingly, the order as contained in Memo No. 591 dated 15.4.2015 issued by the respondent No.2, District Welfare Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby, quashed. 9. 8. Accordingly, the order as contained in Memo No. 591 dated 15.4.2015 issued by the respondent No.2, District Welfare Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, so far as it relates to the petitioner, is hereby, quashed. 9. The respondent authorities, particularly the respondent No.2 is directed to consider the case of approval of the selection of the petitioner in the light of the enquiry report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Boram, through his letter No. 291 dated 8.5.2015, which has been brought on record as Annexure-F to the counter affidavit, and to pass an appropriate order within the period of two months from the date of communication/production of this order. 10. This writ application stands disposed of with the directions as above.