Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1620 (JHR)

Pinki Kumari @ Pinki Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2017-09-07

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court with a prayer for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika' and further prayer has been made to quash and set aside the appointment of respondent No.8. Factual Matrix 2. The petitioner, who is a married woman and permanent resident of Village Kushumma, P.O. Sultana, P.S. Katkamsandi, District-Hazaribagh, applied for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika' and participated in the Village Level Committee for appointment on the said post along with respondent No.8. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that on 13.10.2010 a 'Aam Sabha' was organized for selection of 'Sevika' for the Anganwari Centre, Kushumma-2 situated at village-Kushumma, P.O. Sultana, P.S. Katkamsandi, District-Hazribagh in which petitioner, Respondent No.8 and other 3 candidates were considered and villagers unanimously selected the petitioner for the post of Sewika. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that she fulfills all the criteria and the requisite qualification for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika'. The petitioner is I.A. pass and has obtained 235 marks out of 500 and secured 2nd Division in comparison to Respondent No.8 who got only 204 marks and secured IIIrd division. B.A. Part-I pass as claimed by the Respondent No.8 is of no use because it is not a complete qualification, therefore, she should be treated as Intermediate passed only because B.A. Part I is not equivalent to Graduate Degree or B.A. passed. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that B.D.O., Katkamsandi recommended the name of petitioner for the post of Sewika for the Anganwari Centre, Kushumma-2 vide his letter dated 25.10.2010 written to the District Social Welfare Officer, Hazaribagh by giving reason for that and requested for the approval. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the concerned Respondents on several occasions but no orders were passed for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika' and the matter is still pending. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the concerned Respondents on several occasions but no orders were passed for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika' and the matter is still pending. 6. It was brought to the notice of the petitioner that case of respondent No.8 has been recommended for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika' and as such the petitioner approached before the authorities for consideration of her case as she has obtained more marks and her case was recommended by the Village Level Committee for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika' but no heed was paid to the representation of the petitioner and as such the present writ petition has been preferred. 7. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Ms. Nivedita Kundu argues that as the petitioner has obtained more marks than the respondent No.8 which is required qualification as per the Rule floated by the respondents themselves and she fulfills requisite qualification and the criteria for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika' there is no occasion why her case should not be considered for appointment. 8. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent No.8 has illegally been recommended for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika' though she does not fulfill the criteria for appointment on the said post as she has obtained less marks than the petitioner in Intermediate and she has not obtained a degree of B.A. 9. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondents Mr. Pankan Kumar vehemently opposes the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submits that though the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Village Level Committee and that of the B.D.O. but the same was not approved by the D.D.C. vide letter No.108 dated 09.02.2011 and on the other hand, the case of respondent No.8 was taken for consideration though no appointment has been done till date. 11. Learned Counsel submits that as the panel is of 2012 itself and we are in 2017 no appointment can be done from the panel of 2017 even if the case of the petitioner is considered for having higher marks and after that a fresh 'Aam Sabha' was held and the case of respondent No.8 was recommended for appointment. 11. Learned Counsel submits that as the panel is of 2012 itself and we are in 2017 no appointment can be done from the panel of 2017 even if the case of the petitioner is considered for having higher marks and after that a fresh 'Aam Sabha' was held and the case of respondent No.8 was recommended for appointment. It has been argued that since the petitioner also participated in the said 'Aam Sabha' and when her case was not considered then she has approached this Court challenging the recommendation of respondent No.8. 12. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since last 'Aam Sabha' was held in 2012 itself and till date no appointment has been done. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate and satisfy this Court that the petitioner has secured more marks than the respondent No.8. Learned Counsel for the State justifies the recommendation of respondent No.8 and argues that since the respondent No.8 is having higher qualification as she is studying in B.A. Part I that has been considered and her case has been recommended. Merely admission in B.A. Part I cannot be construed to be a degree of B.A. Submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent is not acceptable to this Court. If any wrong action has been done on behalf of the State it cannot be justified. The State is sitting tight over the matter since 2012. The appointment of 'Aganwari Sevika' are done for giving benefit to the financially weaker sections. It is the State policy to give benefit to the financially weaker sections. Sitting tight over the appointment matter since 2012 shows the lethargic approach of the State by not considering the appointments of even weaker sections that also of 'Anganwari Sevika' and the State is trying to justify their lethargic approach. In view of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, I hereby quash and set aside the recommendation of respondent No.8 dated 28.1.2012 and direct the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner to hold a fresh 'Aam Sabha' after issuance of notice to the respondent No.8 and also to the petitioner and after holding of the 'Aam Sabha' a fresh appointment be done on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika' as per the Rules and Guidelines for appointment on the post of 'Anganwari Sevika'. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 13. Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for appointment as per Rules, letter of appointment should be offered to her within further period of four weeks.