CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Masud Mian vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 5 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 JH CK 0088

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S) No. 1556 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 337 words

Heard Mr. M.K. Laik, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Mahua Palit, learned for the petitioner and Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 3, learned counsel for respondent-State.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction upon the respondents to hold Aam Sabha for appointment of Gram Sevika in village Palta (Jamtara).

Mr. M.K. Laik, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent no. 5 was illegally appointed in the year, 1998 as Anganbari Gram Sevika in the village Palta. He submits that the respondent no. 5 was appointed without following the guidelines. He submits that the petitioner is more qualified than the respondent no. 5. He submits that the petitioner has already approached the Deputy Development Commissioner by way of filing representation but no decision has been taken as yet.

Mr. Manoj Kumar No. 3, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that Anganbari Gram Sevika is not a civil post and this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with this writ petition moreover, representation has not been filed before the competent authority. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to look into the grievance of the petitioner..

In view of the aforesaid facts and without entering into the merit of the case, this writ petition is being disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation before the respondent no. 2 with all the credentials within three weeks from today. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period the respondent no. 2 shall take decision in accordance with rules, regulations and guidelines and pass reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.