Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2183 (JHR)

Dhena Tudu v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-12-18

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
JUDGMENT S.N. Pathak, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to appoint her to the post of Atirikt Anganwari Sewika Sah Poshan Paramarshi (Poshan Sakhi) for the Anganwari Centra Bairiyabad, Dumka by cancelling the appointment of respondent No. 6, who has been appointed dehors the rule. 2. The respondents-State vide Memo No. 2126 dated 21.09.2015 issued a guideline for selection of Atirikt Anganwari Sewika (Poshan Sakhi). As per the said guideline, minimum qualification for the said post is matric and marks have been given for the head of educational qualification, residence, Technical qualification and for matriculation, 10 marks has been allotted, likewise for intermediate, 15 marks have been allotted. As per the said guideline, the respondent published recruitment Notice in the month of April, 2016 for appointment to the post of Atririkt Anganwari Sewika (Poshan Sakhi) for the Anganwari Centre Bairiyabad, Dumka, under the Chairmanship of CDPO, Maslia Gram Sabha. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and two other candidates applied for the said post. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she has passed Intermediate Examination from JAC in the year, 2016 with 55.80 per cent and also have two years experience. Whereas, the respondent No. 6 has passed intermediate with 40.60 percent in the year, 2012. Though the certificates were very much before the respondents but they illegally and arbitrary did not consider the certificates of the petitioner and have issued appointment letter to the respondent No. 6 though she has obtained less marks than the petitioner. 3. Having came to know about marks obtained by the respondent No. 6, the petitioner filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka for consideration of her case in view of the guideline issued by the State Government for appointment to the post of Atirikt Anganwari Sevika (Poshan Sakhi) as she has obtained more marks than the respondent No. 6. As the case of the petitioner was not considered neither any appointment letter was issued nor the appointment of respondent No. 6 was cancelled, the petitioner has rushed to this Court, by filing of this writ petition. 4. Ms. Saroj Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents have illegally, arbitrary and with mala fide intentions appointed the respondent No. 6. 4. Ms. Saroj Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondents have illegally, arbitrary and with mala fide intentions appointed the respondent No. 6. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner has obtained more marks than the respondent No. 6 and as such she ought to have been appointed on the said post. The certificates of the petitioner were very much in the possession of the respondents, which have also been annexed in the writ petition, which clearly shows that the petitioner has obtained more marks than the respondent No. 6 and just to favour the respondent No. 6, her certificates have not considered. Learned counsel further argues that in view of the marks obtained by the petitioner, the appointment of respondent No. 6 may be quashed and a direction be given to the respondents particularly, the Deputy Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner for offering the appointment letter. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Kaustav Roy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph No. 16 of the counter-affidavit and submits that after considering the representation made by the writ petitioner Dhena Tudu, the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka has already cancelled the selection of the respondent No. 6, Sanoti Murmu and order to appoint/select the writ petitioner for the post has been passed and accordingly, the writ petitioner has been selected for the said post. Learned counsel further argues that in view of paragraph 16 to the counter-affidavit, the State has already considered the case of the petitioner and as such, the writ petition has been filed hurdly, without knowing the fact that the offer of appointment letter has been issued and as such, this writ petition has become infurctuous. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. From perusal of the documents brought on record, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has obtained more marks than the respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 6 has been appointed dehors the rules. The respondents-authorities without considering the certificates produced by the petitioner with mala fide intention, has issued the appointment letter to the respondent No. 6. From perusal of the documents brought on record, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has obtained more marks than the respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 6 has been appointed dehors the rules. The respondents-authorities without considering the certificates produced by the petitioner with mala fide intention, has issued the appointment letter to the respondent No. 6. However, it has been submitted and brought on record, by way of an affidavit that the respondent-Deputy Commissioner has already considered the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Atirikt Anganwari Sevika (Poshan Sakhi) and has already quashed the appointment of respondent No. 6. There is no need to issue a fresh direction for appointment of the petitioner. However, since it has been disputed by the petitioner that till date, she has not received any appointment letter, I hereby direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not appointed till date. Since, the appointment of respondent No. 6 has already been cancelled by the competent authority, no fresh direction is required. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.