Sharda Devi vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mrs. Bharti Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I. appearing for the Respondent-

State, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 4 to 6 as well as Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel for the Respondent nos. 7

to 10.

In this writ application, the petitioners have sought for issuance of appropriate writ upon the concerned respondents to consider the case of the

petitioners for filling up the posts assigned to the categories of General candidate after quashing the part of Office order dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure-

2), issued by the Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Pramandal, Dumka and further prayer has been made to pass appropriate order restraining the

respondents to fill up the post earmarked to candidates of General categories against the post of Supervisors in their respective posts and also prayed

for issuance of an appropriate letter of selection and appointment accordingly to correct the merit list.    Â

Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application, is that in pursuance to the advertisement published for

appointment of 42 Women Supervisors from among the Anganbari Sevika working in 33 old Child Development Schemes in the Division of Dumka in

the light of Notification dated 22.05.2006 and letter dated 13.11.2007, 311 Anganbari Sevika and the petitioners having the requisite qualifications,

applied for the post of Women Supervisors and the petitioners appeared in the examination. However, to the utter consternation of the petitioners, the

result was not in consonance with the advertisement. There was total 42 posts for Women Supervisors (21Unreserved, 19 Scheduled Tribes, 02

Schedule Caste), but, instead of general category posts, it has been filed up by the other categories of candidates namely respondent No. 4 to 10, who

are members of reserved categories. It has been further averred in the writ application that there were two conditions for promotion of Anganbari

Sevika to Women Supervisor i.e. (i) Anganbari Sevika, who have rendered 10 years of continuous satisfactory service having qualification of B.A. in

any subject and (ii) Anganbari Sevika, who have rendered 15 years of continuous satisfactory service and having qualification of Matriculation, but,

the said conditions have not been taken into consideration and one Dipali Mishra at Serial No. 10 in Selection list (posted at Pakur) has not completed

10 years of regular service. All the petitioners were appointed as Anganbari Sevika in between 1990 to 1991 in different Anganbari Kendra in the

distt. of Godda and thereafter they got training as Anganbari Sevika. It has further been averred that all the petitioners have possessed requisite

qualification i.e. Graduation in their respective subjects and 10 years of continuous service as Anganbari Sevika as necessary for the post of Women

Supervisor. It has been further stated that the petitioners have filed several representations before the concerned authorities which did not evoke any

response. Left with no alternative, the petitioners have been constrained to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for

redressal of their grievances.Â

Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that the result was not in consonance with the advertisement as there was total 42

posts for Women Supervisors (21-Unreserved, 19 Scheduled Tribes, 02 Schedule Caste), but, instead of general category posts, it has been filled up by

the other categories of candidates namely respondent No. 4 to 10, who are members of reserved categories. Learned counsel further submits that

there was no instructions in the advertisement nor in the question papers, that a candidate was required to use any particular i.e. Pencil or dot/gel Pen

and all the petitioners had used gel-pen, but some candidates as well as the private respondent No. 4 to 10, however, at the time of examination used

Laed pencil and at the time of evaluation of answer papers, in order to give preference to the case of private respondent nos. 4 to 10, interpolation

were done in the answer papers, submitted by the respective candidates and by use of rubber, the wrong marking in pencil were rubbed off by the

examiners by correcting in their own pen, corrected marking in the answer papers and the said fact can be ascertained by calling the original papers of

private Respondents from the custody of the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were not favoured with any copy of the

answer papers of the private respondent nos. 4 to 10 and after publishing the result, some candidates challenged it before the concerned authorities

and the authorities assured that the matter will be enquired, but the assurance went in vain and the matter has never been enquired by the

authoritiesÂ

Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no. 3, wherein, it has been, inter alia,

submitted that there was total 42 posts of Lady Supervisors were available vacant for appointment out of Anganbari Sevika (21-Unreserved, 19

Scheduled Tribes, 02 Schedule Caste).

According to the decision of the Divisional Selection Committee, Â Meeting held on 09.07.2010 under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner, S.P.

Division, Dumka, it has been decided to appoint 21 Lady Supervisors against the Un-reserved category from all categories of candidates, who had

obtained highest marks of 164 and minimum marks of 142 in written test examination held out of Anganbari Sevikas of the Santhal Parganas Division,

according to the merit list prepared in this connection and the details of marks obtained in the Written examination by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are

as follows : -

                       Â    Name ofÂ

    Sl. No.  Candidates      ÂM arks

ObtainedÂ

                         Rekha    158

           4. RaniÂ

                         Tripti    152

           5. Bhandari

                         Sumitra    150

           6. Devi

                         Punam    158

           7. DeviÂ

                         Champa    142

           8. Devi

                         Meena    144

           9. Kumari

  Since these respondents have obtained highest marks between 164 to 142, hence these candidates had been appointed against 21 Un-reserved

vacant posts of Lady Supervisors. It has been further averred that the respondent No. 10, Bitia Hansda had obtained 130 marks and hence, she had

been appointed out of 19 reserved posts of Scheduled Tribes, therefore, no illegality has been committed in the matter. These petitioners, who are

working on the post of Anganbari Sevika within the Santhal Parganas Division had appeared in the Test Examination, but they could not obtain

qualifying marks between 164 to 142 and hence, they could not be appointed on the post of Lady Supervisors. The respondent no.10 is the candidates

of Scheduled Tribe and hence, she has been appointed against the reserved post of Scheduled Tribe. It has been further submitted that the blame

levelled against the examiner is totally false and there is no provision for supply of Photo Copy of Answer Books used by the candidates in the written

test examination, hence petitioners could not be supplied photo copy of Answer Books of Respondent nos. 4 to 10, seeking under the provisions of

Right to Information Act, 2005. It has been further averred that from the merit list of the candidate for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor, it

is crystal clear that Dipali Mishra had joined on the post of Anganbari Sevika on 18.03.1997 and hence, 19.07.2010 on the date of issue of appointment

letter, said Dipali Mishra had completed 10 years of service period on the post of Anganbari Sevika and the claim of these petitioners for appointment

on the post of Lady Supervisors out of the Anganbari Sevika is totally illegal, therefore, there is no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition is fit to

be dismissed.  Â

Learned counsel for the Respondents-State apartfrom reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit, has submitted that the claim of

these petitioners for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisors out of the Anganbari Sevika is thoroughly misconceived, therefore, there is no merit

in the writ petition. Learned counsel further submits that the blame levelled against the examiner is totally false and there is no provision for supply of

Photo Copy of Answer Books used by the candidates in the written test examination, hence petitioners could not be supplied photo copy of Answer

Books of Respondent nos. 4 to 10, seeking under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005.

Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent nos. 4 to 6 and Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent Nos. 7 to 10 have adopted the submissions of the learned counsel for the Respondent-State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the

petitioners due to the following facts and reasons : -

(i) According to the decision of the Divisional Selection Committee Meeting held on 09.07.2010 under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner, S.P.

Division, Dumka, it has been decided to appoint 21 Lady Supervisors against the Un-reserved category from all categories of candidates, who had

obtained highest marks of 164 and minimum marks of 142 in written test examination held out of Anganbari Sevikas of the Santhal Parganas

Division. Â

(ii) Since respondent nos. 4 to 10 have obtained highest marks between 164 to 142, hence these candidates had been appointed against 21 Un-

reserved vacant posts of Lady Supervisors and these petitioners, who are working on the post of Anganbari Sevika within the Santhal Parganas

Division had appeared in the Test Examination, but they could not obtain qualifying marks between 164 to 142 and hence, they could not be appointed

on the post of Lady Supervisors.    Â

In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the part of the impugned Office order dated 19.07.2010 (Annexure-2), issued by the

Commissioner, Santhal Pargana Pramandal, Dumka, does not warrant any interference by this Court.Â

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, being devoid of any merit.