Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 373 (JHR)

Kanchan Kumari v. State of Jharkhand

2024-04-09

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2024
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 to cancel the selection of the respondent no. 8 made by the selection committee pursuant to the decision taken in its Aam Sabha held on 5th October, 2017 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), as the said respondent has illegally been selected as Anganwari Sevika for Dema-1 Anganwari Centre, Hariharganj, Medninagar, District Palamau. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to recommend the petitioner’s name for the post of Anganwari Sevika of the said centre and to appoint her on the said post. 2. The main submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is duly qualified to be appointed as Anganwari Sevika of Dema-1 Anganwari Centre, Hariharganj, Medninagar, District Palamau, as she possesses the degree of B.A. (Hons.) in Hindi with 1st Division. She is a married lady and is permanent resident of village Dema, Hariharganj, P.O. & P.S. Hariharganj, District Palamau. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste community which is in majority in village Dema. 3. It is further submitted that as per the list of members of Scheduled Caste vis-à-vis the other backward class community submitted by the villagers of the said village along with their joint representation dated 07.10.2017, the members of Scheduled Caste are in majority. As per the said list, the population of members of Scheduled Caste in village Dema is 216, whereas the population of the members of other Backward Class community is only 158. The said fact was brought to the notice of the respondent authorities by filing joint representation dated 07.10.2017 by the villagers, however, the same was not considered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, submits that the selection of respondent no. 8, who is a member of Extremely Backward Classes community, is illegal. Moreover, initially one Madhuri Kumari, daughter of Ram Prasad Thakur was selected as Anganwari Sevika and after her marriage, her mother-Kusum Devi was selected on the said post and on her death, her daughter’s daughter-in-law i.e. respondent no. 8 has been selected as Anganwari Sevika, which suggests that appointment on the said post has been made on hereditary basis. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that respondent no. 8 has been selected as Anganwari Sevika, which suggests that appointment on the said post has been made on hereditary basis. 5. No one appears on behalf of the respondents. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating, inter alia, that respondent no. 8 has rightly been selected as Anganwari Sevika for Dema-1 Anganwari Centre, Hariharganj in the year 2017 by the duly constituted selection committee. The said selection was made in fair manner and there was no illegality in the same. It has further been averred in the counter affidavit that selection of Anganwari Sevika is made among the suitable candidates belonging to the caste whose population is in majority in the concerned village where Anganwari Centre is situated and the said principle has duly been followed in selecting the respondent no. 8, as the other Backward Class community is in majority in Dema-1 Anganwari Centre. The Scheduled Caste community to which the petitioner belongs is less in number in comparison to the other Backward Class community. Para-4 of the guidelines as contained in letter no. 585 dated 2nd June, 2006 (Annexure-B to the counter affidavit) issued by the Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development, Government of Jharkhand, has been duly followed while selecting the respondent no. 8 as Anganwari Sevika of the said centre. A copy of survey report dated 18th January, 2019 has also been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, on perusal of which it would be evident that the number of members of Scheduled Caste is 253, whereas number of the members of other Backward Classes is 1482 in the area relating to Dema-1 Anganwari Centre. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner however contends that the said report is of the year 2019, whereas the appointment of respondent no. 8 was made in the year 2017. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that while selecting Anganwari Sevika of the concerned centre, the caste with majority in population in the area of that centre has the primacy and suitable candidate belonging to the said majority caste is to be selected as Anganwari Sevika. 10. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 9. It is not in dispute that while selecting Anganwari Sevika of the concerned centre, the caste with majority in population in the area of that centre has the primacy and suitable candidate belonging to the said majority caste is to be selected as Anganwari Sevika. 10. On perusal of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, it is evident that the number of the members of Scheduled Caste community in the area of Dema-1 Anganwari Centre was 253, whereas the number of the members of other Backward Classes community was 1482. Thus, there was a big difference in number of the members of both the communities. Though, the survey report was prepared after selection of respondent no. 8 made in the year 2017, however, there would not be much variance in the population of the said communities in two years. 11. Under the said circumstance, though the report was prepared in the year 2019 i.e. after about two years of selection of the respondent no. 8 as Anganwari Sevika for Dema-1 Anganwari Centre, yet the stand taken by the respondents that on the date of said selection, the members of other Backward Classes community were in majority cannot be brushed aside. Hence, selection of the respondent no. 8, who belongs to Extremely Backward Class community, as Anganwari Sevika of the said centre cannot be said to be illegal. The list mentioning population of Scheduled Caste and other Backward Class (EBC+BC-II) annexed with the representation filed by the petitioner in support of her claim to show that the population of Scheduled Caste community was more than that of the other Backward Class community at the time of selection of the respondent no. 8 cannot be accepted, as the same is not supported by any authentic survey done by a competent authority. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for cancellation of selection of respondent no. 8 as Anganwari Sevika of Dema-1 Anganwari Centre, Hariharganj, Medininagar, District Palamau. 13. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.