Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1255 (JHR)

Rajni Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2018-06-18

S.N.PATHAK

body2018
ORDER : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the process of selection dated 23.11.2016 for the post of Anganbari Sevika for Babupur Anganbari Centre. Further prayer has been made to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganbari Sevika. 3. The factual matrix as has been delineated in the writ petition is that a notification was floated by the State Govt. for appointment of Anganbari Sevika for the village of Babupur in the district of Dumka. Pursuant to the said notification, an Aam Sabha was held on 23.11.2016 in which the petitioner along with respondent No. 6 participated for appointment on the post of Angabari Sevika and the respondent No. 6, having the higher qualification amongst the other candidates, was selected and appointed on the said post and the case of the petitioner was not considered. Aggrieved by the said selection process, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authorities but the same was not considered and hence, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner for redressal of her grievances. 4. Mr. Amarendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner challenges the appointment of respondent No. 6 on the ground that as per the Rules/Guidelines for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika, the Coram for selection process was not complete and as such, the said selection was done dehors the rules. Learned counsel further argues that the majority of the villagers of the said centre belonged to Scheduled Caste category and not from the Other Backward Class category and as such, as per the provisions laid down by the State Govt., the petitioner ought to have been appointed, as she belongs to Scheduled Caste Category. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had directed the respondent-State to file an specific affidavit as to whether the village for which the process of appointment took place consists of majority of villagers from SC category or from OBC category. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had directed the respondent-State to file an specific affidavit as to whether the village for which the process of appointment took place consists of majority of villagers from SC category or from OBC category. In pursuance to the Court’s order, the respondents have filed an affidavit and in para-7 of the said affidavit, it has been specifically mentioned that total population of the said village/centre was 765 in which the population of SC category was 218 and population of OBC category was 461 and as such, the said centre was recognized as OBC populated centre. Further it was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that three candidates applied for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika and their candidatures were duly considered and as per letter dated 02.06.2006, the respondent No. 6 (Koshaliya Kumari) was selected and appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevika from OBC category. Regarding contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Coram was not complete, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the issue has been raised for the first time and the petitioner never raised any objection at the time of selection process and it was only when she was declared unsuccessful, this objection has been raised by the petitioner. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference in the writ petition. The petitioner duly participated in the selection process and has not raised any objection with respect to Coram at that time. Admittedly, the Village Selection Committee after holding the Aam Sabha selected one Koshaliya Kumari (respondent No. 6), considering her candidature to be fit for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika. Three candidates appeared in the selection process and they never raised any objection and on scrutiny of the certificates of the candidates, it was found that respondent No. 6 was the fittest amongst all three candidates and hence, her candidature was considered and she was appointed, who belongs to the majority class of the population of the centre in question, i.e. OBC. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed.