Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1511 (JHR)

Nirmala Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-07-11

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned decision dated 11.05.2010, vide Annexure-4, and the impugned order dated 11.05.2010 (Annexure- 4 and 4/A) whereby the respondent no.5 has been appointed as Sevika for Thekhi Centre. 2. The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application is that in pursuance to notice issued for appointment of Sevika and Sahayika in Kummi-Khurd Thekhi Centre, the petitioner along with others applied for the post of Sevika. It has been averred in the writ application that a meeting of Aam Sabha was held on 03.02.2010, in which decision has been taken for appointment of the petitioner as Sevika and the respondent no.5 has been appointed as Sahayika, as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In pursuance to the Aam Sabha, provisional appointment order was issued as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It has been contended in the writ application that without cancellation of the selection again another Aam Sabha was held on 11.05.2010 and the decision was taken for appointment of respondent no.5 as Sevika in place of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, to accommodate the respondent no.5 in place of the petitioner because of some extraneous consideration, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievance. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned decision vide Annexure-4 and 4/A to the writ petition is illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been selected by the Aam Sabha and provisional appointment order was issued as Sevika, but without any rhyme and reason again another Aam Sabha was held, whereby respondent no.5 was selected and appointed as Sevika, therefore, the action of the respondents amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. 4. Repelling the contention made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the Respondent nos.2 to 4 wherein it has been submitted that with regard to Aam Sabha held on 03.02.2010 no approval was given and fresh Aam Sabha was held on 11.05.2010, but the Deputy Development Commissioner ordered on 26.06.2010 to hold fresh Aam Sabha. Again Aam Sabha was held on 10.08.2010 in which respondent no.5 was selected but the selection of respondent no.5 has not been approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner. It has further been submitted that the meeting dated 03.02.2010 cannot be the basis of appointment as it was not approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner. 5. Learned counsel for the State apart from reiterating the submission made in the counter affidavit has submitted that in fact the provisional selection of the petitioner as well as respondent no.5 have never received the approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner and in that view of the matter, no appointment to the post in question has been made. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that since no appointment in pursuance to selection for the post of Sevika and Sahayika has been made, as disclosed in the counter affidavit, it would be in the fitness of things to dispose of the writ application with direction to the respondents to initiate the process of selection for the post of Sevika and Sahayika at KummiKhurd Thekhi Aanganbari Centre, in accordance with Government guidelines as well as in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, if the same has not been done in the meantime and if there is no impediment for such course of action. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.