Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 435 (JHR)

Promila Hansda v. State of Jharkhand

2020-03-03

S.N.PATHAK

body2020
JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the termination order dated 27.06.2011, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, whereby without any basis and on wrong finding the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Angan Bari Sewika and in her place, respondent No. 7 has been appointed. Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent to release/pay the salary w.e.f. the date of termination till the date of reinstatement with all consequential benefits. 3. Facts of the case in short is that petitioner was selected to the post Angan Bari Sewika for the Centre of Sangrampur, by the Aam Sabha held on 10.05.2007 and pursuant thereto, she was issued appointment letter dated 11.07.2007. Thereafter, petitioner was sent for in-service training vide letter dated 31.01.2008, issued by C.D.P.O. Rajmahal. After completion of said training, petitioner gave her joining on 28.03.2008 before the C.D.P.O., Rajmahal. It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 7 made a complaint against the petitioner that she does not belong to the centre for which she was appointed and on her said complaint, petitioner was asked to appear before the respondent-authorities on 08.12.2007, to present her case. Subsequently, on 26.02.2008, respondents on the instance of local MLA resolved that the appointment process was not properly done and as such, decided to conduct selection process afresh. Thereafter, vide letter dated 15.04.2008, the services of the petitioner was terminated on the ground that she does not belong to the concerned village. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she submitted income certificate, caste certificate and residential certificates, from which it is crystal clear that the petitioner belongs to village Sangrampur, where her marriage was solemnized with a local resident of the village namely Amit Tudu. Aggrieved thereto, the petitioner preferred W.P.(S). No. 5013 of 2008 challenging the said termination order, which was heard and finally disposed of on 13.01.2010, setting aside the termination order. After lapse of almost three years, respondent No. 7, Anna Hansda preferred W.P.(S). No. 3734 of 2010, challenging the appointment of petitioner on the ground that she is not the inhabitant of nutrition area of village Sangrampur. No. 5013 of 2008 challenging the said termination order, which was heard and finally disposed of on 13.01.2010, setting aside the termination order. After lapse of almost three years, respondent No. 7, Anna Hansda preferred W.P.(S). No. 3734 of 2010, challenging the appointment of petitioner on the ground that she is not the inhabitant of nutrition area of village Sangrampur. The Hon’ble Court vide order dated 31.08.2010, disposed of said writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 3 to treat writ petition as representation of the petitioner therein and to pass reasoned order, in accordance with law. Subsequent thereto, after issuing notices to the petitioner as also to respondent No. 7, the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj, without assigning any reason passed order on 27.06.2011, terminating the services of the petitioner and giving approval to the appointment of the respondent No. 7. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of her grievances. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-authorities most arbitrarily and whimsically terminated the petitioner without assigning any cogent and valid reason. Learned counsel further argues that due to arbitrary and illegal action of the respondents, the petitioner has been seriously prejudiced and her fundamental right is in fact snatched/curtailed and as such, order of termination dated 27.06.2011, is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, whimsical and liable to be quashed and set aside. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents have no right to terminate the services of the petitioner, who was appointed as Anganbari Sevika lawfully after observing all the formalities. 5. Per contra counter-affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that after verifying the educational qualification of respondent No. 7 and the present petitioner, the respondents have come to the conclusion that respondent No. 7 had passed Intermediate examination with 1st division, whereas, the present petitioner had passed her Intermediate examination with 2nd division, meaning thereby that the respondent No. 7 is more qualified than the present petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that as per the circular of the Govt. Learned counsel further argues that as per the circular of the Govt. issued vide letter No. 585 dated 02.06.2006, it is apparent that the candidate who has secured more marks/higher qualification shall be given preference over the other candidates and as the respondent No. 7 being found more eligible than the present petitioner, she had been appointed to the post of Angan Bari Sewika. Learned counsel submits that for the aforesaid reasons, there is no infirmity in appointing the respondent No. 7 and as such, no interference is warranted in the instant writ application. 6. Be that as it may, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons: (I) As per the Govt. circular issued vide letter No. 585 dated 02.06.2006, a candidate who has secured more marks/higher qualification shall be given preference over the other candidates. (II) Admittedly, respondent No. 7, who has secured 1st division in intermediate is more qualified than the present petitioner, who has passed the intermediate with 2nd division. (III) This Court vide its order dated 31.08.2010, passed in W.P.(S). 3734 of 2010, had earlier issued a direction to respondent No. 3 to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and as such, there is no illegality in the order passed by the respondent No. 7, who has passed the said order considering the government circular and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the parties. (IV) It is also there that petitioner does not belong to the concerned village where the Angan Bari Centre is situated and as per the rule – 7 (g) of government circular dated 02.06.2006, a person has to be appointed as Anganbari Sewika from the concerned village only. 7. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order and hence, no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed.