Pinki Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel for the respondents-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 appoint her on the post of Aanganbari Sevika- cum-Poshan Paramarshi Sakhi at Bishinpur-2 Centre, Block Mahagama, District Godda.

Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is more qualified than the respondent no.8. He further submits that the petitioner is second division in Matric and the respondent no.8 is third division in Matric. He also submits that the petitioner has not been selected without any reason.

Mr. Rahul Kamlesh, learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that Deputy Commissioner is competent authority to take any decision with regard to the dispute in nature. He further submits that the Writ Court may not interfere under Article 226 of Constitution of India. He further submits that the post of Aanganbari Sevika is not a civil post.

In view of above facts and considering the nature of dispute, this Court is not inclined to pass any positive order in this writ petition. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to move before Deputy Commissioner and file fresh representation within a period of three weeks. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner will take decision in accordance with rules, regulations and guidelines and will pass appropriate reasoned order within a period of eight weeks thereafter.

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.