Baby Devi vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.G.R. Patnaik, J.—It appears from the office report that though, notices upon the private respondent No. 6 have been validly served, but she has not appeared either in person or through lawyer.

Counter-affidavit appears to have been filed on behalf of the remaining respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

Heard Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner being aggrieved by her non-selection on the post of Anganwari Sevika and appointment of the respondent No. 6 on the post, has filed this writ application with a prayer for directing the respondent authorities to issue an appointment letter to her on the aforesaid post.

The ground on which the petitioner has claimed the relief is that she fulfills the eligibility criteria of Anganwari Sevika in all respects not only by virtue of the fact that she is a permanent local resident of the village in which Anganwari Centre is located, but she also possesses the academic qualification and she is also a member of the predominant caste of the village whereas the respondent No. 6 does not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed under the stipulated Rules of the Government and yet, she has been appointed and the petitioner has been discriminated.

In the counter-affidavit of the respondent State, the stand taken is that the selection of the respondent No. 6 to the post of Sevika was made upon the consensus arrived at by the members attending the Aam Sabha. The meeting was conducted under the Chairmanship of the respondent No. 5 and only three candidates had applied for the post. It is further contended that the respondent No. 6 was found to possess all requisite eligibility criteria and therefore, her selection cannot be disputed as illegal or arbitrary.

Having heard Counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents on record, it appears that among the grounds advanced by the petitioner assailing the appointment of the respondent No. 6, she has also stated that as per Rules, appointment of the candidates should be made from the majority community of the village and the petitioner belongs to the majority community. The petitioner has advanced certain other grounds which, according to her, is relevant in the context of the Rules which guide the selection and appointment of the Anganwari Sevika.

Considering the above facts, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district within 15 days from the date of this order and, within two months from the date of receipt of the representation, the Deputy Commissioner shall consider the objection taken by the petitioner and after affording opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioner, but also to the respondent No. 6, shall take an appropriate decision on the objection raised by the petitioner and communicate such decision effectively to the petitioner.

With these observations, this writ application is disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given to the Counsel for the respondent State.