Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1235 (JHR)

Sunita Devi @ Sunita Kumari v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-06-14

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. Despite service of notice on the private respondent and Vakalatnama having been filed on her behalf, no one appears today to represent her. 2. This appellant was though a party in the writ petition but not noticed where order of termination of the writ petitioner from the post of Anganbadi Sevika dated 09.04.2008, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Sahibganj and the appellate order dated 04.05.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibjang were under challenge. 3. Writ petitioner was selected as Anganbadi Sevika and appointed as such w.e.f. 29.06.2007. It is evident from the records that it was on the complaint of the present appellant, who was also a candidate for the same post, inquiry was held leading to the termination of the appointment of the writ petitioner. Writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of termination also exercised the remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj being R.M.P. No. 2/08-09. It was after due hearing of the writ petitioner, the Member, Screening Committee and others, the order of termination of the writ petitioner was upheld while affirming the appointment of the present appellant on the post of Anganbadi Sevika for the centre of Badi Kodarjnna, East Mahaldaar Tola, Sahibganj Block. It is also evident from the records that in terms of resolution dated 23.03.2007 of the Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development, Government of Jharkhand, a Screening Committee was constituted, comprising of Block Development Officer, Sahibganj, Sub Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, the representative of the Member of Parliament and also the representative of the local Member of Legislative Assembly. This report, part of letter No. 164 dated 11.02.2008 (Annexure-2), found the claim of this appellant superior compared to the writ petitioner. In the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner also took note of the comparative merit of the two candidates and observed that two members in the family of writ petitioner were in Government Service while, on the other hand, the husband of the present appellant was working as a labourer and was a landless person. The name of this appellant was also listed in the below poverty line list at serial No. 1133 and she was the holder of a Red Card. The name of this appellant was also listed in the below poverty line list at serial No. 1133 and she was the holder of a Red Card. As per the report of the Screening Committee, the appellant was matric pass while the writ petitioner had the qualification of Madhyama. It was further observed by the Deputy Commissioner that the documents relating to land showed that the writ petitioner had sufficient source of livelihood with landed property. Based on these considerations and after hearing the writ petitioner as well as other parties, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 04.05.2009 upheld the termination of the writ petitioner and affirmed the appointment of the present appellant. In this background, the writ petition was decided without noticing the present appellant, who was a candidate to the same post and aggrieved due to her non-selection. In fact, the proceedings had been initiated on her complaint. 4. Learned Single Judge has, however, proceeded to quash the order of termination of the writ petitioner primarily being guided by the consideration that she was terminated without any proper notice or service of the inquiry report. However, learned Single Judge failed to take into account that the candidate (present appellant) though impleaded , was not noticed, though she was appointed on the same post of Anganbadi Sevika and her interest was likely to be adversely affected. 5. Respondents-State had defended the impugned decision before the writ court. However, in the present appeal, they have apart from referring to the merits of this decision, sought to convey that the order passed in the writ petition have been complied with. It further appears from the perusal of the order sheet that the order impugned herein has been stayed vide interim order dated 30.10.2012, after taking note of the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that the appellant is still continuing and holding the post. 6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant continues to hold the post till date. As such, any contention that she has become age barred as on date also does not stand. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge in absence of a necessary party is bad in law and has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice as well. It, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge in absence of a necessary party is bad in law and has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice as well. It, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 7. In view of the discussions made and the facts and circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the impugned order deserves to be set aside having been passed without notice to a necessary party i.e. the appellant. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to hear the writ petition afresh. The appellant is permitted to enter appearance in the writ petition in the meantime. However, it is made clear that observation if any, made hereinabove shall not be treated as comments on the merits of the case. 8. This Letters Patent Appeal stands allowed. 9. Let the writ petition be listed before the appropriate Bench in the week of 9th July, 2018.