Mamta Oraon vs State of Jharkhand

Pramath Patnaik, J

In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post

of Anganbari Sevika and further to quash the decision of Village Committee dated 22.07.2015 whereby it was decided to appoint respondent no. 8-

Usha Oraon on the post of Anganbari Sevika.

2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Amit Kumar, Associate Counsel to learned G.P. II for the respondents-State

and Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 8.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika for Angan Bari Kendra Jangi, meeting of

Village Committee was held on 14.03.2013, which was presided over by Child Development Project Officer/Mukhiya, wherein the case of the

petitioner along with other candidates were considered and after considering all aspects of the matter, the village Committee unanimously agreed to

provisionally appoint the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika and in terms of the decisions of village Committee dated 14.03.2013, the Child Development

Project Officer, Kuru issued provisional selection letter to the petitioner on the same day. But, despite being the fact that the petitioner was selected,

another meeting was conveyed on 23.09.2013 under the chairmanship of Child Development Project Officer, Kuru, wherein also the petitioner

secured maximum number of votes and the village committee consented to the appointment of the petitioner on the said post. It has further been

averred that even then also, the authorities again conveyed a meeting of village Committee on 03.01.2014 and resorted to secret ballot wherein also,

the petitioner secured 30 votes whereas respondent no. 8 could not secure a single vote. Hence, on the basis of majority of votes, petitioner ought to

have been selected. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Sumati Devi Vs. State

of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2009(4) JLJR 626. It has further been submitted that only to accomodate again another meeting was held on

22.07.2015 in which, respondent no. 8 was selected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that without cancelling the selection of the petitioner on valid ground, the respondents

ought not to have held meeting for fresh selection. But, the authorities only in order to accommodate respondent no. 8 conveyed meeting dated

22.07.2015, which shows arbitrariness and discriminating attitude of the respondents-authorities.Â

As against this, learned counsel for the respondents- State submitted that it is true that the name of the petitioner was provisionally selected by the

Gram Sabha two times i.e. on 14.03.2013 and 23.09.2013, but, due to non-adopting of the provisions/directions as laid down in letter dated 02.05.2006

in particular Para (7) Clause (k), the petitioners name could not be confirmed. It has been submitted that as a matter of fact, after provisional selection

of the petitioner, when the name of the petitioner was referred to higher authorities for confirmation, the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga

cancelled the same assigning the reason that C.D.P.O was absent in the meeting held for selection of Anganbari Sevika and direction was given to go

for fresh selection process. Thereafter, the meeting of the selection committee was held on 03.01.2014, in which, selection was made through secret

votes and again the name of the petitioner was recommended but the higher authorities did not confirm the same and the questioned the process

adopted in meeting dated 03.01.2014 vide its letter dated 07.02.2015 and even respondent no. 6 was show caused, to which she replied. Being

satisfied the higher authorities directed to held fresh meeting for selection on the post in question and only thereafter, as per the provisions as

contained in letter dated 02.06.2006 meant for selection of Anganbari Sevika, selection committee conveyed its meeting, in which respondent no. 8

was selected on the basis of her qualification and other criteria.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 8 submitted that respondent no. 8 is fulfilling all the eligibility criteria for the post in question i.e.

she is permanent resident of village Jangi, where the Anganbari Centre is situated and she also possessed higher qualification among all other

candidates appeared for the said post. So far claim of the petitioner that she was provisionally selected in meeting held on 14.03.2013 is concerned, is

not true as provisional selection letter was issued by Female Supervisor and not by Child Development Project Officer, Kuru, who is competent to

issue such letter. Hence, her provisional selection was in contravention of the rules/guidelines framed for selection of Anganbari Sevika.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the material available on record, there is no iota of doubt that the petitioner

two times i.e. on 14.03.2013 and 23.09.2013 was provisionally selected by the Gram Sabha, but, due to non-adopting of the provisions/directions as laid

down in letter dated 02.05.2006 in particular Para (7) Clause  (k), as alleged the petitioners name could not be confirmed.

Thereafter, again meeting was held for selection of Anganbari Centre wherein also the case of the petitioner was recommended but the higher

authorities did not confirm the same as the same was done by adopting the means of secret  vote.Â

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner  submitted with vehemence that only in order to accommodate respondent no. 8, for the forth time

meeting was held for selection of Anganbari Sevika.

Be that as it may be, there is no denial of the fact that because of no fault on the part of the petitioner, she was denied appointment on the post in

question and only for laches on the part of respondents-authority she has to suffer a lot.

Hence, to meet the ends of justice, without quashing the decision of village Committee dated 22.07.2015 so that working of Anganbari Centre in

question may not suffer, it would be apposite to dispose of the writ application with direction to respondent no. 3-Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga to

reconsider the case of the petitioner and respondent no. 8 and pass appropriate order within a period of twelve weeks from the date of

receipt/production of copy of this order in accordance with law. Â

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ  petition stands disposed of.  Â