Jharkhand High Court

Gulbano Khatoon vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 14 January, 2021

                                      1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    W.P.(S) No. 2403 of 2009
     Gulbano Khatoon                             ..... Petitioner
                            Versus
    1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Ministry of
       Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
    2. The Director, Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand,
       Ranchi.
    3. The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar.
    4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar.
    5. The District Programme Officer, Deoghar.
    6. The Child Development Programme Officer, Deoghar.
    7. The President, Selection Committee, Aagan Bari Cenre,
       Nawadih, Panchayat, Basakola, P.S. Jasidih, Deoghar.
                                       ..... Respondents
                              ---------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

---------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arbind Kr. Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manoj Kr.-III, G.P.-II

---------

07/Dated: 14th January, 2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by

the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order of

Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar as contained

in Memo No. 76 dated 20.02.2009, whereby the selection of

the petitioner as Aaganbari Sevika of Nawadih Centre

within Panchayat-Basakola, P.S.-Jasidih, Deoghar, has

been cancelled.

3. Mr. Arbind Kr. Choudhary, learned counsel for the

petitioner contended that the Deputy Development

Commissioner has no authority or power to cancel the

service of Sevika/Sahayika of any Aganbari Centre and it is

only the Child Development Project Officer, who is

competent authority to pass any order in view of the

Government guidelines. He further submits that the

petitioner being the daughter of the village was legally

entitled for the post of Aaganbari Sevika.

In support of his contention he relied upon the

judgment passed by this Court in the case of Kanchan Devi

Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2014 (4) JLJR

2, wherein at para 7, this court has held as under:-

"7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record, it is not disputed that by Circular dated 02.06.2006 issued by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand, wherein guidelines for selecting AaganbariSevika has been laid down, whereby it has been prescribed that the AaganbariSevika must be a permanent resident of the said village in which Aaganbari Kendra is situated and if the Aaganbari Kendra is situated in a village situated in the neighbourhood (Tola) then the appointee should be the resident of the said Tola or neighbourhood so that she can be available amidst the beneficiaries. The residential certificate dated 09.01.2007 has been issued by the office of the Circle Officer, Itkhori, in which, it has been mentioned that the respondent is a resident of village Lambodih and reference has also been made to the record of rights. The Mukhiya of the village has also issued certificate, as per Annexure - 5, wherein it has been mentioned that the respondent No.8 is residing along with her husband, BinodYadav and family for the past 15 to 20 years. It is not disputed that the village Lambodih, Prithvipur and Mahdavpur are the PoshakChhetra (Feeder Area) for the Aaganbari Kendra at Madhavpur. The respondent No.8 was selected by the AamSabha dated 18.01.2007 in the presence of the Child Development Programme Officer (C.D.P.O), Itkhori and

other members and the Resolution of the said meeting has also been signed by the scores of person of the village. It is evident that the respondent No.8 along with five others had filed an application for appointment as AaganbariSevika and after scrutinizing the documents, the respondent No.8 was provisionally selected and a provisional selection letter dated 18.01.2007 was issued to her under the signature of the then Child Development Programme Officer (C.D.P.O), Itkhori and thereafter an appointment letter dated 13.06.2008 was issued to her. Admittedly, she has been working as AaganbariSevika since 2007. It is noticed that between the issuance of provisional selection letter dated 18.01.2007 and permanent appointment letter dated 13.06.2008, there was a period of more than one and half years and no adverse report was submitted regarding submission of a wrong residential certificate and in fact she continued to work on the post till 2011, which is more than four and half years whereafter, her appointment was cancelled by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra. It is necessary to take note of this fact that the appellant was arrayed as an opposite party in the writ and notice was issued to her but for reasons best known to her she did not appear to contest the aforesaid writ petition. Admittedly the AamSabha is the selecting authority of the AaganbariSevika and it has been held in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi and Smt. Tara Devi (Supra), as cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No.8 that such power is vested in the Selection Committee, which alone can issue order and make such recommendation of removal of a AaganbariSevika by the Child Development Programme Officer. The Deputy Development Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue such order."

4. Relying upon the aforesaid contention and the

judgment, Mr. Choudhary prays for quashing of the

impugned order and further for a direction to the

respondent-authorities to consider his case, on the basis of

guidelines of the State Government.

5. Mr. Manoj Kr. No-III, learned counsel appearing for

the respondent-State does not have any objection, if the

case is remitted back to the respondent-authorities to

inquire into the matter and pass a fresh order.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in

view of the judgment referred to hereinabove and also the

averments made in the respective affidavits, it appears that