Smt. Rita Devi vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

D.N. Patel

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika with effect from 16th March, 2007 vide order at Annexure6 and respondent no. 5 is working on the said post and, therefore, the present petition has been preferred for appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika and to allow her to work as Anganbari Sevika. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that respondent no. 5 is not qualified to be appointed as Anganbari Sevika because she is not belonging to the village at which, the Anganbari Centre is situated.

Learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that the petitioner was never appointed as Anganbari Sevika, but, she was recommended for the post of Anganbari Sahayika and there is tampering of the Government document by the petitioner, as stated in paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent State. In fact, respondent no. 5 is appointed as Anganbari Sevika. In view of these facts, this writ petition may not be entertained by this Court because there is tampering of the document in letter no. 39/A dated 16th March, 2007.

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the claim of the petitioner that she was appointed as Anganbari Sevika is based upon Annexure-6 dated 16th March, 2007. The respondents have stated in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the counter affidavit as under:

That in reply to statements in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition under reply, it is submitted that the respondent no. 3 vide letter No. 39 (A) dated 16.3.2007 issued a letter to Rita Devi appointing her as Sahayika, not as Sevika as claimed by the petitioner.

That in reply to statements made in paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition under reply, it is stated that tampering was done in letter No. 39/A dated 16.3.2007 and hence, the same was not accepted.

In view of the aforesaid dispute raised by the respondents that there is tampering of the appointment letter by the petitioner itself and the petitioner was never appointed as Anganbari Sevika, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. The petitioner is already appointed as Anganbari Sahayika for the very same Anganbari Centre. It appears that the very basis of the petitioner is fraudulent document. Fraud vitiates the whole proceeding from the very beginning.

In view of the aforesaid facts, there is no substance in this writ petition and, hence, the same is, hereby, dismissed.