Puja Rajak vs State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for appointment to the post of Poshan Sakhi after correctly evaluation of her secondary school

examination’s marks as the same has been published contrary to the rules of Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development.Â

The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an Aam Sabha was called on 23.05.2016 at Giridih Urban Area Anganbadi

Centre, Darban Chowk for appointment to the post of Poshan Sakhi, in which the petitioner, having the requisite qualification, applied for the same and

her candidature was considered along with other candidates. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though she submitted all the documents at the

time of selection process but the same was not considered and the respondents have illegally appointed one Nitu Kumari to the post of Poshan Sakhi.

Aggrieved by her nonconsideration, the petitioner submitted representation before the respondents but the same was not considered and hence, she

has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court.

Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of Poshan

Sakhi as she has obtained more marks than Nitu Kumari, who was appointed to the said post. The respondent-authorities have not paid any heed to

the marksheet of the petitioner and illegally and arbitrarily the case of Nitu Kumari was considered for appointment to the post of Poshan Sakhi, which

is dehors the rules. Â

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Singh draws the attention of the Court towards para-9 of the counter-affidavit and submits

that on scrutiny of the applications it is found that, both Nitu Kumari and the present petitioner have obtained 45 marks and as such, there was tie

between them which could be resolved only on the basis of percentage of marks of matriculation/ secondary examination, but as the petitioner has not

submitted the complete matriculation certificate showing her to be matric pass, her candidature was not considered for appointment and on being

found suitable, Nitu Kumari was rightly appointed to the said post as per merit list. It has also been argued that Nitu Kumari made an objection that the

petitioner also applied for selection to the post of Poshan Sakhi for Nawadih Panchayat of Jamua Block with the help of residential certificate showing

herself to be the resident of Barahmoria within the P.S. Jamua, and simultaneously, she also applied for her selection to the post of Poshan Sakhi for

Giridih (Urban) Angan Bari Kendra showing her to be the resident of Giridih and as such, there is no illegality or any infirmity in appointment of the

said Nitu Kumar to the post of Poshan Sakhi.

Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for

interference in the writ petition. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. It is admitted by the

petitioner that she has obtained two residential certificates. It is settled principle of law that a candidate must be a resident of a particular place and he

or she cannot be the resident of two places at the same time. Obtaining two residential certificates itself shows that petitioner wanted to get herself

appointed on the basis of fake certificates, which cannot be justified in the eyes of law. It is the specific stand of the respondents that petitioner never

submitted her certificates at the time of selection process. Averments has been made in para-8 of the writ petition that though petitioner submitted her

certificate regarding compartmental examination but the same was not considered. The averments in the writ petition is contrary to the representation

filed by the petitioner and the arguments advanced in the open Court before the Bar.Â

As such, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered on the following grounds:-

(I) Petitioner never submitted the required certificates at the time of selection process.

(II) Petitioner admittedly has obtained two residential certificates which shows the fraudulent activity of the petitioner.

(III) The guidelines issued by the Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development clearly shows that a person appointed on the post of

Poshan Sakhi should be the resident of a particular village/ tolas. But the petitioner has fraudulently obtained two different residential certificate for

two places.

(IV) The petitioner must have come with clean hands for seeking any relief from the Court.

 8. Resultantly, the writ petition is devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.