Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2160 (JHR)

Rinki Kumari v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-09-28

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2018
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to cancel the appointment of respondent no. 7 and direct the respondents to make appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application is that pursuant to a notice, Aam Sabha was held on 22.05.2007, in which one Beli Devi was selected as Sevika and Sunita Devi was selected as Sahayika but the petitioner failed to get selection on the post of Sevika. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed application before the authorities concerned for cancellation of selection of said Beli Devi. Consequently, her selection was cancelled. Thereafter, in between 2007 to May, 2013 three times Aam Sabha was held but selection on the post of sevika could not be made. Ultimately, 4th Aam Sabha was held on 31.05.2013, in which, petitioner, respondent no. 7 and another candidate applied but ignoring the higher educational qualification of the petitioner and further she belongs to scheduled caste, the beneficiary population, respondent no. 7 was selected. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed an application before the Secretary, Social Welfare Department but it did not evoke any response. 3. Heard Mr. Purnendu Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. D.K. Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I for the respondentState and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 7. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to clause 7 to departmental letter dated 02.06.2006 issued by the Secretary, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, which dealt with the eligibility condition of the Anganbari Sahayika and Sevika, submitted that it clearly stipulates that candidates having higher qualification should be given preference but that has been given a complete go by. It has further been averred that Anganbari Centre is a scheduled caste beneficiaries area, hence candidate was to be selected among them, but that has also not been followed. Furthermore, from the proceeding of Aam Sabha, it is clear that in the selection committee there were five members but the selection of respondent no. 7 was made by only C.D.P.O, Meharma and lady Supervisor, which casts serious doubt upon the selection process. 5. Furthermore, from the proceeding of Aam Sabha, it is clear that in the selection committee there were five members but the selection of respondent no. 7 was made by only C.D.P.O, Meharma and lady Supervisor, which casts serious doubt upon the selection process. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent-State submitted that the Sunita Devi, who was selected in Aam Sabha held on 22.05.2007 on the post of Sahayika was another Sunita Devi and not the present respondent no. 7 falling under the category of Other Backward Caste and not Scheduled Caste and only in order to divert the Court such instance has been given; hence the claim of the petitioner that the centre was reserved for scheduled Caste has no leg to stand. So far possession of higher qualification by the petitioner is concerned, that shall only be considered if she possess other eligibility criteria. In the case at hand, the petitioner does not belong to majority caste i.e. Other Backward Class rather she belongs to Scheduled Caste; hence her candidature was disqualified on the ground of majority caste. In the notice meant for selection on the post in question, it is nowhere stated that the Anganbari Centre is reserved for Scheduled Caste. Learned counsel for the respondent-State further submitted that petitioner even does not belong to Anganbari Ithari Centre IV rather she belongs to Anganbari Ithari Centre III, as her house is situated in Anganbari Centre Ithari III. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 7 submitted that respondent no. 7 was selected by the Aam Sabha, who is the competent authority to select Anganbari Sevika and she is continuing on the post to the utmost satisfaction of respondentsauthorities. 7. From the pleadings available on record and from perusal of notice inviting application for selection on the post of Anganbari Sevika, it appears that it nowhere states that the Centre in question was reserved for Scheduled Caste rather persons belonging to beneficiary area was to be selected. From perusal of Annexure B, Annexure C and Annexure D to the counter affidavit, it appears that petitioner does not belong to the beneficiaries'' area; which is a condition precedent for selection on the post in question. Hence, possession of higher qualification shall not entitle the petitioner to stake her claim for selection on the post in question. 8. From perusal of Annexure B, Annexure C and Annexure D to the counter affidavit, it appears that petitioner does not belong to the beneficiaries'' area; which is a condition precedent for selection on the post in question. Hence, possession of higher qualification shall not entitle the petitioner to stake her claim for selection on the post in question. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds no merit in the writ application. Hence, the writ application, being devoid of any merit is dismissed.