Sima Devi @ Sima Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard the parties.

Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika in the district of Palamau in village Khaira of

Manatu Block, district Palamu.

As per the notification floated by the Department of Social Welfare, a meeting of Aam Sabha was held on 07.07.2015 for appointment of

Anganbari Sevika in Manatu Block of Palamu District. The petitioner having the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Anganbari

Sevika, applied for the same and upon consideration and on verification of the certificates and testimonials, the Aam Sabha in its meeting dated

07.07.2015 selected the petitioner for appointment as Anganbari Sevika. Thereafter, a provisional appointment letter dated 07.07.2015 was also issued

to that effect by the Chairman of the Selection Committee. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though she was selected by the Aam Sabha and

also an appointment letter to that effect was issued, the same was never approved and on a fake complain, her appointment was cancelled on the

ground that her residential certificate is not valid and she does not belong to the said Block/ Beneficiary Area. The petitioner represented before the

concerned-authorities for acceptance of her joining as she was selected by the Aam Sabha and she belonged to the concerned Block but the same

was not considered and she was harassed. As such, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court.

Mr. Anjani Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urges that petitioner having the requisite qualification was selected for

appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika and the ground for cancellation of her appointment is not valid in the eyes of law as she belongs to the

Beneficiary Area and was selected by the Aam Sabha. As per the guidelines issued by the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand

dated 02.06.2006, the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika.

Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State, submits that upon the

direction of this Court, the residential certificate of the petitioner has been verified by the Deputy Commissioner and it has been found that the said

certificate is genuine and petitioner is entitled for appointment. An affidavit to that effect has also been filed on 22.11.2018, which shows that the

name of the petitioner is very much in the list of permanent residents of Village Khaira, Block Manatu, District Palamu.

Mr. Prem Pujari Roy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7 very fairly submits that as the matter has been verified by the Deputy

Commissioner and as per the affidavit filed by the respondent-State, certificate of the petitioner is found genuine and valid in accordance with law and

he has no objection if order is passed in favour of the petitioner.

Be that as it may, having gone through the fair submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs

consideration. In the Aam Sabha, the case of the petitioner was considered for appointment and she was selected for appointment to the post of

Anganbari Sevika and an appointment letter was also issued to that effect though subsequently it was not approved on a fake complain by respondent

No. 7. After hearing counsel for the parties, a direction was given to the respondent-Deputy Commissioner on 26.06.2018 to hold an enquiry and to

ascertain as to whether residential certificate submitted by the petitioner is genuine or not. It was also observed that if the certificate of the petitioner

is found to be genuine, there was no occasion to hold a fresh Aam Sabha. On the direction of this Court, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent-

State clarifying that the order of this Court has been fully complied with and upon enquiry it has been found that the certificate of the petitioner is

genuine. In para-8 of the counter-affidavit, it has been clearly held that, “it is found that the residential certificate issued to Sima Devi vide letter

No. 358 dated 12.08.2013, by the Circle Officer, Manatu holds good because her name is found in the permanent residence of Village Khaira, P.S.

Manatuâ€​.

In view of the enquiry and in view of the affidavit filed by the respondent-State, I hereby direct the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to

issue suitable directions to the concerned/ competent Authorities for taking steps for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Anganbari Sevika. Let

the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed.