Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1278 (JHR)

Sabita Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-27

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for her appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika and also for quashing appointment order dated 30.09.2009 by which the respondent No. 5, illegally and arbitrarily, has been appointed on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. A notice dated 23.09.2009 issued by CDPO, Chatra Rural regarding selection for appointment of Angan Bari Sevika in Singhpur Angan Bari Kendra of Lame Panchayat, which was signed by the Headmaster and the villagers, who were the beneficiaries. In response to such notice, the petitioner along with respondent No. 5 appeared for selection on the post of Angan Bari Sevika before the Village Education Committee. It is stated that both the candidates submitted cast certificates, residential certificate, income certificate of their husband and educational certificate along with the application forms. The meeting of Selection Committee was held on 30.09.2009 and after perusing the entire certificates/documents of both the candidates, the respondent No. 5 was found fit for selection and appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. After the decision of the meeting, the CDPO, Chatra Rural had issued appointment letter dated 30.09.2009 and also published the list with regard to appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika on 30.09.2009. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that in the notice dated 23.09.2009, one of the eligibility criteria for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika was that “Sevika/Sahaika must be a daughter-in-law of the village concerned and also be a member of such family, who is below poverty line.” To meet this criteria, the petitioner along with respondent No. 5 had submitted the income certificates of their husbands. In the said certificate petitioner has shown that the annual income of her husband is Rs.25,000/-, which below poverty line. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 has submitted forged income certificate showing her husband’s income as Rs.24,000/- per annum, instead of the fact that her husband’s annual income is Rs.50,000/-. 5. In the said certificate petitioner has shown that the annual income of her husband is Rs.25,000/-, which below poverty line. It is the specific case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 has submitted forged income certificate showing her husband’s income as Rs.24,000/- per annum, instead of the fact that her husband’s annual income is Rs.50,000/-. 5. Subsequently, against the illegal appointment of respondent No. 5, the petitioner preferred representation before the respondent-authorities mentioning therein that respondent No. 5 has been appointed illegally and against the provisions of law and her income certificate is forged but no action has been taken by the respondents on her said representation and hence the petitioner has compelled to file the present writ application for redresssal of her grievances. 6. Mr. Navin Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that appointment of respondent No. 5 is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. By referring to notification dated 23.09.2009, learned counsel submits that on the basis of the said notification, the respondent No. 5 has been appointed on the post of Angan Bari Sevika but she has obtained the said appointment by producing forged income certificate. Learned counsel accordingly submits that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika as the appointment of respondent No. 5 is illegal and not in accordance with law. 7. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Amit Kumar, learned JC to GP-II vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that appointment of respondent No. 5 has been done in accordance with law. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards rules made for appointment on the post of Angan Bari Sevika and submits that nowhere in the rule it has been mentioned that persons below the poverty line will not be appointed on the post of Angan Bari Sevika and as the respondent No. 5 fulfills the criteria laid down in the rules for appointment of the Angan Bari Sevika, there is no illegality in the appointment of respondent No. 5, as she has secured more marks than the petitioner in matriculation as well as in intermediate and as such, the petitioner does not deserve to be appointed on the post of Angan Bari Sevika. Learned counsel further argues that till date nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to show that the income certificate submitted by the respondent is a forged certificate and as such, there is no illegality in the appointment of respondent No. 5. Merely levelling allegations against the respondent No. 5, as because petitioner failed to be appointed, cannot be accepted. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no ground has been made for appointment in the writ petition. The petitioner cannot be appointed on the post of Angan Bari Sevika as she has secured less marks than the respondent No. 5 in matriculation as well as in intermediate. Nothing has been shown from the rules that the appointment has been made dehors the rules. 9. In view of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, legal proposition, I find no merit in this writ application. Resultantly, the writ application merits dismissal.