Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 156 (JHR)

Rinku Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-21

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing order dated 29.05.2010 relating to termination of services of the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sevika and further prayed for reinstatement on the said post with all consequential benefits. 2. The brief facts, as disclosed in the writ application, is that pursuant to Aam Sabha held on 21.05.2007, applications were invited from the villagers of Nawadih Baijnathpur for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sevika, in which, the name of the petitioner was proposed for appointment on the said post and after getting approval of the competent authority i.e. Deputy Development Commissioner, appointment letter dated 08.06.2007 was issued to the petitioner. On being selected, the petitioner was sent for Induction Training and on successful completion of the training, the certificate was issued to the petitioner. 3. After the appointment of the petitioner, one Smt. Sunita Devi @ Sunita Yadav (here respondent no. 7) challenged the appointment of the petitioner by filing W.P. (S) No. 4157 of 2007, which was disposed of directing respondent no. 7 to file representation before respondent-Deputy Commissioner, who, in turn, was directed to take appropriate decision thereof. It has been submitted that thereafter due to non-fulfillment of illegal demands and for extraneous consideration, the petitioner was handed over the termination letter by respondent no. 3 on 28.05.2010. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation to Director, Social Welfare, Jharkhand-respondent no. 2 for setting aside order dated 29.05.2010, but, the said representation did not evoke any response by respondent no. 2. Hence, challenging the order of termination, the petitioner having no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances. 4. Per contra, counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no. 3 to 6 controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that in pursuance to order dated 08.02.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4157 of 2007, the respondent no. 3 after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner as well as Sunita Kumari-respondent no. 3 to 6 controverting the averments made in the writ application. In the counter affidavit, it has been submitted that in pursuance to order dated 08.02.2010 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4157 of 2007, the respondent no. 3 after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner as well as Sunita Kumari-respondent no. 7 arrived at the conclusion that the present writ petitioner was not selected as Sevika of Anganbari Centre of Nawadih Baijnathpur in accordance with Rules as enumerated in para 10 of the Government's letter dated 02.06.2006 and further no quoram was fulfilled for selection of the writ petitioner and ultimately the respondent no. 3 set aside her selection. It has further been submitted that residence of the writ petitioner was also found ambiguous and name of the petitioner was also found entered in different Constituency/Assembly and is not recorded in the voter list of village Nawadih Baijnathpur, where the Anganbari Centre runs, rather her name is entered into the voter list of Deoghar Town, village Tumbabel as well as in the voter list of Katoria Constituencies, which fall in Banka District of Bihar. It has further been submitted that allegation of demand of money by respondent no. 6 and also wrongful inducement showing two types of order drafted but not signed by respondent are totally frivolous and it reveals the mental status of the petitioner to be ill motive. 5. Respondent no. 6-the District Social Welfare Officer has also filed counter affidavit stating therein that the allegation of the petitioner is an act to adopt pressure tactics in order to blackmail the respondents so that they can succumb to the illegal acts of the petitioner. 6. Counter affidavit has also been filed by private respondent no. 7 stating therein that after full dressed hearing, the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar-respondent no. 3 allowed the representation of Sunita Devi and thereafter, Aam Sabha of the villagers was held on 17.12.2012, where only two prospective candidates appeared, namely, namely (1) Sunita Kumar wife of Naresh Yadav and another (2) Sunita Kumar wife of Suchit Yadav), however, candidature of Sunita Kumari was cancelled on the ground that she was the second wife of Suchit Yadav and both wives of Suchit Yadav were alive. Accordingly, respondent no. 7 being the only candidate was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika for Nawadih-Baijnathpur Kendra. 7. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Accordingly, respondent no. 7 being the only candidate was selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika for Nawadih-Baijnathpur Kendra. 7. Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rishikesh Giri, J.C to G.P. II for the respondents-State, Mr. Prashant Pallav for respondent no. 6 and Mr. Vijay Kishore Prasad for respondent no. 7 and perused the documents available on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that action of the respondent no. 3 in terminating from the post of Anganbari Sevika on the ground of alleged irregularities committed in selection process is contrary to the Government Circular No. 585 dated 2.6.2006. It has further been submitted that termination of the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sevika by respondent no. 3 is violative of settled principles of law laid down vide order dated 9.10.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 5369 of 2007. 9. Referring Annexure 11, annexed in reply to the supplementary counter affidavit, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 2266 of 2008 taking reference of a case Binu Mishra and Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand and others as reported in 2012 (2) JCR 69 , has been pleased to hold that if there is any irregularity in the selection process, the Director, Social Welfare Department has jurisdiction to cancel the appointment, but, in that case since the appointment of petitioner was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner, hence, the Hon'ble Court held that order being without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the order passed in W.P. (S) No. 2266 of 2008. 10. In order to buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a decision rendered in the case of Ranjit Kumar Murmu Vs. Lachmi Narayan Bhomroj and others as reported in (2013) 14 SCC 572 , wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that “liberty to move competent authority does not confer jurisdiction upon any authority who otherwise is not so empowered under statute.” 11. Lachmi Narayan Bhomroj and others as reported in (2013) 14 SCC 572 , wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that “liberty to move competent authority does not confer jurisdiction upon any authority who otherwise is not so empowered under statute.” 11. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any legally tenable point to warrant interference by this Court, due to following facts and reasons: (i) Admittedly, in pursuance to order passed on 08.02.2010 in W.P. (S) No. 4157 of 2007, respondent no. 7 submitted representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar. In deference to the aforesaid direction of this Court, after full dressed hearing, learned Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar passed an order by allowing representation of the petitioner, now respondent no. 7 and the present petitioner was debarred from participating in the Aam Sabha to be called for confirmation or the selection on the post of Aanganbari Sevika. In the Aam Sabha held on 17.12.2012, the name of two prospective candidates appears, namely, (1) Sunita Kumari, W/o Naresh Yadav (respondent no. 7 of the present writ petition) and (2) Sunita Kumar wife of one Suchit Yadav. The candidature of Sunita Kumar was rejected by the Aam Sabha as she was the second wife of Suchit Yadav, while both wives of Suchit Yadav were alive. Therefore, decision of the Aam Sabha crystalizes that only respondent no. 7, fulfilled the criteria for the post of Anganbari Sevika of Nawadih-Baijnathpur Kendra. In pursuance to the selection of respondent no. 7 in the year 2013, she continued in service without any interruption. Therefore, no ground has been made out by the petitioner for interference by this Court. (ii) After giving my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and the decisions cited by learned counsel for the petitioner Ranjit Kumar Murmu (Supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case since the petitioner was represented by the counsel at the time of disposal of W.P.(S) No. 4157 of 2007. So whatever ground has been stated by the petitioner is an afterthought, he cannot turn around to submit that that the representation has not been disposed of by the competent authority. So whatever ground has been stated by the petitioner is an afterthought, he cannot turn around to submit that that the representation has not been disposed of by the competent authority. (iii) Moreover, on the factum of resident of village, it has been brought on record that the petitioner is not the resident of village Nawadih-Baijnathpur and the name of the petitioner does not find place in the figure of Nawadih-Baijnathpur. Therefore, the petitioner does not fulfill the condition of being resident of that village. On that score, the case of the petitioner is not entertainable. 12. As a logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, does not warrant interference by this court, which is accordingly is dismissed. Petition dismissed.