Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2080 (JHR)

Parmila Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-09-14

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - By way of filing instant writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing order dated 05.04.2008, by which the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is that a general body meeting under the chairmanship of C.D.P.O was held for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika and Sahayika, in which, the petitioner-Mrs. Parmila Devi along with two other candidates (1).Mrs. Kiran Devi and (2) Mrs. Suma Devi participated. But, it is alleged that the CDPO, Mohanpur with ulterior motive in her report, mentioned only the name of Suma Devi as a candidate, against which objections were raised by the villagers before the Deputy Commissioner. Thereupon the respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar took cognizance of the matter and directed the District Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar to enquire the matter and submit a report and on the basis of report submitted by District Land Acquisition Officer, the petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sewika vide memo dated 08.06.2007 by respondent no. 4-CDPO, Mohanpur. Thereafter, the petitioner started discharging her duties but all of a sudden, the respondent no. 2 passed order dated 05.04.2008 whereby appointment of the petitioner was cancelled and CDPO, Mohanpur was directed to call a general body meeting to reselect a suitable candidate. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner represented before the respondents-authorities but it turned deaf ear, which compelled the petitioner to approach this Court for redressal of her grievances. 3. Heard Mr. Ram Lakhan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, A.C to learned S.C. (L & C) for the respondents-State and Mr. Arbind Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in utter violation of principles of natural justice. Furthermore, on the order of respondent no. 2 enquiry was made by Land Acquisition Officer, who in unequivocal terms has opined that as per the rule, petitioner is entitled to be selected; hence there is no justification of issuance of impugned order and calling for fresh Aam Sabha. 5. Furthermore, on the order of respondent no. 2 enquiry was made by Land Acquisition Officer, who in unequivocal terms has opined that as per the rule, petitioner is entitled to be selected; hence there is no justification of issuance of impugned order and calling for fresh Aam Sabha. 5. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner has filed one Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 1950 of 2011 for staying operation of notification/notice dated 18.06.2011, issued from the office of CDPO, Mohanpur whereby it is informed to all concerned that an Aam Sabha shall be held on 08.07.2011 to select Sewika/Sahayika in village Bhikhna. 6. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that some facts has not been brought to the knowledge of this Court and as a matter of fact a general body meeting was held on 22.05.2007 for appointment of the Sahayika but due to some objection raised by the villagers, the selection process could not be completed and another general body meeting was held on 26.05.2007, in which, name of respondent no. 5-Mrs. Suma Devi was recommended, however, on the basis of findings of Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar the selection of respondent no. 5-Mr. Suma Devi was set at naught and petitioner was engaged and later vide impugned order the engagement of the petitioner was also cancelled. As the posts were lying vacant since long and there was no stay order for fresh selection, on the direction of respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar a fresh Aam sabha was held on 27.12.2012 by adhering due procedure, in which, respondent no. 6-Mrs. Pooja Kumari was selected and approval of her selection was also granted vide letter dated 22.02.2013. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 appeared and submitted that appointment of respondent no. 6 has been made by Aam Sabha by following due process of law and she has been discharging her duties with utmost satisfaction to the authorities. 8. After bestowing my anxious consideration to the materials available on record, it appears that initially the name of respondent no. 5-Mrs. Suma Devi was recommended by the Aam Sabha. But, against her selection, complaint was lodged by the villagers, upon which respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar appointed Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar to enquire the matter. Upon enquiry, he submitted report basing on which the selection of respondent no. 5-Mrs. 5-Mrs. Suma Devi was recommended by the Aam Sabha. But, against her selection, complaint was lodged by the villagers, upon which respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar appointed Land Acquisition Officer, Deoghar to enquire the matter. Upon enquiry, he submitted report basing on which the selection of respondent no. 5-Mrs. Suma Devi was cancelled and petitioner was appointed. But, by issuance of impugned order dated 05.04.2008, the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of impugned order is quoted herein below: 9. There is no iota of doubt that the Aam Sabha is the competent authority to recommend the name of Sewika/Sahayika as per relevant circular of the Department and in the case at hand the name of the petitioner was never recommended by the Aam Sabha, hence there is no illegality in passing the impugned order so as to warrant interference. 10. Further, as per the direction given in the impugned order fresh Aam Sabha was held on 27.12.2012 in which, respondent no. 6-Mrs. Pooja Kumari was selected and approval of her selection was also granted vide letter dated 22.02.2013. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that there is no procedural illegality in the appointment of respondent no. 6; hence no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 11. For the discussions made in the forgoing paragraphs and conclusions arrived at by this Court, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 12. Consequently, I.A. No. 1950 of 2011 stands disposed of.