Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 216 (JHR)

Gyanti Kumari v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-02-02

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2017
JUDGMENT Mr. Shree Chandrashekhar, J. – Grievance of the petitioner is that she secured better qualification than the selected candidate who had produced a forged certificate of Graduation. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner claims that she passed B.A.(Hons.) examination in the year, 2015 with 52.8% marks. She was a candidate for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika for Anganwari centre at Harizan Tola, Parihara. Altogether 13 candidates had submitted their application, out of which four candidates were found ineligible and accordingly, their candidature was rejected. There were three candidates who had acquired Graduation qualification. The respondent no. 6 was found a better candidate compared to the petitioner on the ground that she secured 56.27% marks in Graduation. After proceeding of the Gram Sabha held on 30.01.2016 in which the respondent no. 6 was selected, the petitioner protested her selection by a representation claiming that Graduation certificate submitted by respondent no. 6 is forged. An enquiry was initiated in the matter, however, in the meantime, respondent no. 6 resigned. In the light of the subsequent development, the respondent State has taken a stand that now another meeting of Aam Sabha is required to be convened for fresh selection. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, the learned State counsel submits that selection of Anganwari Sewika is the exclusive jurisdiction of Village Aam Sabha and unless a recommendation is forwarded in favour of a candidate, no appointment can be made on the post of Anganwari Sewika. 4. The proceeding of the Aam Sabha dated 30.01.2016 reveals that the petitioner was not selected for appointment only for the reason that the respondent no. 6 had secured more marks than the petitioner. Now, before a verification report on the genuineness of the Graduation certificate produced by the respondent no. 6 is received, she has resigned from the post. The petitioner, who, in fact, turns out to be the candidate with highest marks in Graduation can now legitimately claim appointment and no fresh Aam Sabha needs to be convened. In these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika for the Anganwari centre at Harizan Tola, Parihara, provided she is otherwise eligible for appointment. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwarespondent no. In these facts, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika for the Anganwari centre at Harizan Tola, Parihara, provided she is otherwise eligible for appointment. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the Deputy Development Commissioner, Garhwarespondent no. 4 who upon verification of other eligibility criteria, if any, issue necessary direction to the Child Development Project Officer, Garhwarespondent no. 5 for issuing appointment letter to the petitioner, within six weeks. 6. I.A. No. 761 of 2017 renders infructuous and I.A. No. 762 of 2017 stands disposed of.