Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2408 (JHR)

Anita Mahli v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-10-30

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and from the relevant material pleadings on record, following order was passed on 27.02.2013: "The petitioners'' appointment as Anganbari Sevika or Sahayika made by Annexure-3 Series dated 18th September, 2006 on the recommendation of Aam Sabha and Selection Committee for Anganbari Centre, Annanagar, has been cancelled by the impugned order contained at Annexure 5 & 6. The respondents through their counter affidavit have stated that the income certificate submitted by the petitioner no.1 was found to be false, which is also annexed as Annexures 1/A &A/2 to the counter affidavit. However, the averments made in the counter affidavit are not clear as to how it has been found to be false. So far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, it has been stated that she has been appointed by Selection Committee, in which the husband of the said petitioner himself was a member and as such the selection process of the petitioner no.2 is vitiated on account of failure to comply the principle of natural justice. In support of the Annexure-A/1, the minutes of the Selection Committee meeting is annexed showing husband of petitioner no.2 as one of the persons in the selection committee functioning as Gram Pradhan. However, the respondents have not been able to clarify as to how the income certificate of the petitioner no.1 was found to be false. The respondents are allowed time to substantiate the aforesaid contentions, for which two weeks time is granted. List this case after two weeks." 3. A supplementary counter affidavit was filed only on 22.10.2018 thereafter pursuant to a coercive order dated 08.10.2018. This affidavit encloses a report of the Expert Group to review the methodology for measurement of poverty, Government of India, Planning Commission, June, 2014 to substantiate the stand that Petitioner No.1, Anita Mahli was not belonging to the BPL category. Inferential submissions have been made on the basis of the report at Para 2.18 and 2.32 that an estimate of the poverty line and poverty ratio for the year 1993-94, 2004-05 and later years have been depicted by way of a chart. Inferential submissions have been made on the basis of the report at Para 2.18 and 2.32 that an estimate of the poverty line and poverty ratio for the year 1993-94, 2004-05 and later years have been depicted by way of a chart. Apparently there are no other document on record which appear to be the basis for the Respondents to say that the income certificate of petitioner no.1 was false or that she did not came within the BPL category at the time when appointment was made or it was cancelled earlier in December 2006 by the impugned order. 4. By way of supplementary counter affidavit filed today respondents have enclosed a communication dated 20.07.2013 between the lady supervisor, Musabani, Singhbhum East and the Child Development Project Officer, Musabani, Singhbhum East. It indicates that no records relating to the selection were available; on being asked, family members of petitioner no.1 failed to provide the BPL card; petitioner no. 1 has submitted the income certificate issued by the Circle Officer bearing letter no. 924 dated 22.09.2006; it further states that during inquiry it was found that she resides at Jamshedur. This inquiry, if at all in a shape of inquiry, has been undertaken in July 2013 to examine the allegation against the petitioner no.1. Averments of the first counter affidavit do not specifically show that income certificate, Annexure- A/2 bearing letter no. 924 dated 22.09.2006 has not been issued by the Circle Officer, Musabani. As per the said certificate the income of the petitioner no.1 was approximately 15,000/- per annum. 5. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, the minutes of the Selection Committee meeting Annexure A/1 to the first counter affidavit shows that husband of the petitioner was a member of Selection Committee functioning as Gram Pradhan. On this Score, the stand of the Respondents that the selection process of petitioner no.2 has vitiated cannot not be found fault with. 6. However, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, apart from the circular dated 02.06.2006 bearing no. 585, Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit filed today, there are no other contemporaneous document to satisfy that petitioner did not belong to the BPL category on account of her income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum as certified by the Circle Officer. 6. However, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, apart from the circular dated 02.06.2006 bearing no. 585, Annexure-B to the supplementary counter affidavit filed today, there are no other contemporaneous document to satisfy that petitioner did not belong to the BPL category on account of her income of Rs. 15,000/- per annum as certified by the Circle Officer. That she belonged to the majority community of the Anganbari Centre and a member of Scheduled Caste is of course not in dispute. Clause 7 of the circular dated 02.06.2006 prescribes the eligibility criteria for appointment of Anganbari Sevika / Sahayika. There are no other material on record to sustain the allegation made on her appointment that she was residing outside the Centre at Jamshedpur at the relevant point of time. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the same time submitted that cancellation of the appointment was made without any notice or show cause. 7. Respondents in their counter affidavit took a plea that show cause was not necessary. This however does not stand to reason once the petitioner no.1 had been appointed by virtue of the order at Annexure-3 dated 18.09.2006 after recommendation of the Gram Sabha as Anganbari Sevika of the Centre Annanagar, Baraghat, Musabani, East Singhbhum. Circular dated 02.06.2006 provides for a forum for appeal in case of disengagement of Anganbari Sevika before the Deputy Commissioner as per Clause 16. The only question that survives is whether petitioner no.1 did belong to the BPL category as per the prevailing norms or not. If, in case she did not belong to the BPL category as per her income certificate by the Circle Officer, the stand of the Respondents to cancel her selection can be justified. Pleadings on that score are apparently insufficient. 8. In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, Respondent no.2 should examine this issue in the light of the prevalent circular at the time of selection and the norms, policies or guidelines prescribing the eligibility of a person to the BPL category. Let such decision be taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, respondent no.2 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Singbhum East on this limited point. Let such decision be taken by the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum East, Jamshedpur, respondent no.2 within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Singbhum East on this limited point. If answer is in favour of the petitioner no.1, respondent no.2 would pass consequential order for her engagement within reasonable time thereafter. In case an adverse order is passed on this issue, it would be open for the petitioner to assail it in fresh proceeding. 9. Be it recorded that by virtue of the interim order dated 03.01.2007 post has remained unfilled till date. The writ petition is disposed of without interfering in the order dated 18.09.2006, Annexure-3/1, so far as case of petitioner no.2 is concerned.