Kajal Devi vs State Of Jharkhand And Others

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, is present.

Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Awanish Shekhar is present.

This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For issuance of direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Aaganbari Sevika for Center of Pindarkom mini Centr Konia Centre no. 64 as she comes within zone of consideration.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Aam Sabha was initially held on 27.08.2009 and the respondent No. 9 was selected. He further submits that complaint was made by the petitioner that respondent No. 9 was ‘under age’ and incorrect documents were filed by her. Under such circumstances, she resigned. He further submits that thereafter another Aam Sabha was held on 08.02.2010 in which Respondent No. 9 was again appointed. In the second Aam Sabha, i.e. 08.02.2010, the petitioner had also participated. Learned counsel submits that it has been mentioned in the counter affidavit that upon enquiry it was found that the allegation made by the complainant with regards to the Respondent no. 9 (Saroj Devi) was found correct and consequently selection of Saroj Devi was cancelled and F.I.R. was also lodged against her. Learned counsel submits that since the petitioner had participated in the Aam Sabha dated 08.02.2010 and the selection of Respondent No. 9 was cancelled, therefore the Respondents ought to have considered the case of the petitioner for appointment and instead of that, the respondents convened another Aam sabha on 21.12.2011 in which the petitioner was not selected. The learned counsel submits that entire action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal and consequently the present writ petition has been filed .

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that as per the counter affidavit, Aam Sabha was held on 27.08.2009 and there were three applicants and respondent No.. 9 was selected, however, she resigned on 11.09.2009 expressing her ability to work as Aangan Bari Sevika. Subsequently a fresh Aam Sabha was convened on 08.02.2010 and again respondent No. 9 was selected, but at that stage, a complaint was made by the petitioner that Saroj Devi was under age and upon enquiry, the complaint was found correct and selection of Saroj Devi was cancelled and F.I.R. was lodged against her. The learned counsel further submits that once the selection of the candidate is cancelled, fresh Aam Sabha is to be convened and other participants who had participated in the Aam Sabha do not get automatic entitlement for appointment and consequently fresh Aam Sabha was convened on 21.12.2011 and another person was selected. He submits that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it is not in dispute that two Aam Sabha were convened firstly on 27.08.2009, when respondent No. 9 was selected and ultimately, she resigned and thereafter on 08.02.2010, when again the respondent No. 9 was selected, but upon complaint made by the petitioner, her selection was cancelled and F.I.R. was lodged against her.

This court is of the considered view that merely because the petitioner had participated in the Aam Sabha on 08.02.2010 and selection of respondent No. 9 was cancelled and F.I.R. was lodged against her, the same does not automatically entitle the petitioner to claim appointment as Aangan Bari Sevika without convening a fresh Aam Sabha. The respondents have already convened Aam Sabha on 21.12.2011 and another person has been selected. This court finds no illegality in the action of the respondents and accordingly the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present writ petition which is accordingly dismissed.

Pending I.A., if any, is closed.