Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 282 (JHR)

Savitri Devi v. State Of Jharkhand

2019-01-29

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2019
JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing order dated 3.2.2012 whereby representation filed by petitioner in pursuance to order dated 01.08.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 542 of 2011 has been disposed of affirming the appointment of respondent no. 6 to the post of Anganbari Sevika; and for quashing the decision of Gram Sabha dated 26.08.2009 whereby respondent no. 6 has been selected for the post of Anganbari Sevika and; for direction upon the respondents-State to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika. 2. The facts, in brief, is that in pursuance to notice published in daily newspaper on 18.08.2009, the petitioner along with others including respondent no. 6 made application for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika. Accordingly, the meeting of Gram Sabha was fixed on 26.08.2009 but the same being holiday, it was deferred to 14.09.2009 and on that day, the Gram Sabha recommended the name of respondent no. 6 in Scheduled Tribe category ignoring the fact that the petitioner is possessing higher qualification and petitioner is resident of the Anganbari Centre in question i.e. Partundahuli whereas respondent no. 6 is resident of another locality. Being aggrieved, the petitioner knocked the doors of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 542 of 2011 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.08.2011 directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, when no order was passed by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner preferred contempt petition but during pendency of the contempt application, order 03.2.2012 has been passed, which is impugned in the instant writ application. 3. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anuj Burman, A.C to learned S.C. V for the respondents-State and Mr. Jay Shankar Tiwary, learned counsel for respondent no. 6. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while disposing of W.P. (S) No. 542 of 2011, the Hon''ble Court directed the respondent to treat the writ petition as representation meaning thereby each and every statement made by the petitioner in the writ petition was to be answered by the respondent no. 6. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while disposing of W.P. (S) No. 542 of 2011, the Hon''ble Court directed the respondent to treat the writ petition as representation meaning thereby each and every statement made by the petitioner in the writ petition was to be answered by the respondent no. 2 while disposing of representation but the specific issue raised with respect of non-convening of any meeting on 26.08.2009, as would be apparent from letter dated 7.09.2009, and further the petitioner possess higher/better qualification than respondent no. 6 as petitioner is 2nd Division Intermediate whereas respondent no. 6 is 3rd Division Intermediate and further petitioner is permanent resident of the locality which is main criteria for being appointed on the post in question has not been dealt with and ignoring these issues impugned order 3.2.2012 has been passed. It has further been submitted that in the impugned order it has been averred that the petitioner did not accept the notice but as a matter no such notice was issued/served upon the petitioner. It is beyond imagination that the petitioner, who was pursuing her case diligently before this Court she would not choose to appear before respondent no. 2 for deciding her claim. The main ground for denial of her appointment, as made out in the impugned order dated 3.2.2012 is that the husband of the petitioner is employed whereas husband of respondent no. 6 is unemployed but it would be apt to mention here that no opportunity was provided to the petitioner to rebut that stand before the learned Deputy Commissioner, hence this ground is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in pursuance to direction given in W.P. (S) No. 542 of 2011 vide order dated 1.08.2011, notice was issued to both - petitioner-Savitri Devi and respondent no. 6-Salo Devi but the petitioner refused to accept the notice and even on notice being served through Chowkidar she refused to accept the same, as evident from service report annexed with the counter affidavit as Anenxure A and B whereas respondent no. 6 upon receipt of notice appeared on the date fixed. Hence, the respondent no. 6-Salo Devi but the petitioner refused to accept the notice and even on notice being served through Chowkidar she refused to accept the same, as evident from service report annexed with the counter affidavit as Anenxure A and B whereas respondent no. 6 upon receipt of notice appeared on the date fixed. Hence, the respondent no. 2 left with no option proceeded with the matter and after examining the matter in the light of relevant rules/regulations/policies rejected the claim of the petitioner, which needs no interference by this Court. It has further been submitted that before the Gram Sabha three candidates appeared and all of them were possessing the Intermediate degree but only respondent no. 6 had no means of earning whereas other candidates had means of earning in their family; hence taking into consideration this fact, respondent no. 6 being the fittest candidate was selected for the post in question. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 submitted that appointment of respondent no. 6 was done as per government rules/regulations/circular by Gram Sabha and she is continuing on the post in question since 2009. 7. From the pleadings available on record, it appears that in pursuance to order dated 01.08.2011 passed in W.P. (S) No. 542 of 2011, the Deputy Commissioner-respondent no. 2 issued notice to both the parties i.e. the petitioner and respondent no. 6 herein and from plain reading of service report of notice of petitioner, annexed as Annexure A and B to the counter affidavit, it appears that it is the petitioner who refused to accept the notice; hence notice can safely be said to be validly served. It is the petitioner, who herself decided not to appear before respondent no 2. So far issue of residential status of parties are concerned the Gram Sabha as well as respondent no. 2 has stated that all the candidates from the majority of beneficiaries area. So far qualification and other eligibility criteria of the candidates are concerned, the respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner has elaborately dealt with in order dated 3.2.2012 in tabular form, which is reproduced herein below: 8. So far submission of the petitioner that she possess 2nd Division in Intermediate whereas respondent no. So far qualification and other eligibility criteria of the candidates are concerned, the respondent no. 2-Deputy Commissioner has elaborately dealt with in order dated 3.2.2012 in tabular form, which is reproduced herein below: 8. So far submission of the petitioner that she possess 2nd Division in Intermediate whereas respondent no. 6 possess 3rd Division in Intermediate, from the chart depicted above, it is apparent that no certificate was attached it would be apt to refer to a decision rendered in the case of Yogesh Kumar & Ors vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors as reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548 wherein the Hon''ble Court has held that possession of higher qualification does not create any right nor give any undue advantage to the candidates, if minimum qualification is being possessed by the candidates. In the case at hand, respondent no. 6 was possessing minimum qualification besides other eligibility criteria and she is now serving for a decade. In such view of the matter, no interference is called for. 9. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the writ application being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.