Jharkhand High Court
Sepali Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Others on 14 November, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 7804 of 2011
Sepali Devi ... ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Others ... ... Respondents
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. H. K. Mahto, Advocate
: Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
---
09/14.11.2022
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
order dated 27.08.2010 has been passed pursuant to order passed by this
Court dated 22.06.2009 in W.P. (S) No. 177/2009. The learned counsel
has referred to the aforesaid order passed by this Court in the earlier
round of litigation being W.P. (S) No. 177/2009 and has submitted that
the Deputy Commissioner was directed to pass a speaking order after
granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner of the said case,
Brihaspati Devi, who is private respondent No. 7 in the present case.
3. The learned counsel submits that upon perusal of the impugned
order, it is apparent that the petitioner is non-matric, but belongs to
scheduled tribe category and her name was recommended by Aam Sabha
for being appointed to the post of Aanganbari Sewika. He submits that so
far as the private respondent is concerned, she was matriculate belonging
to backward category. The learned counsel submits that while passing
the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has recorded that the
present petitioner was not belonging to the community of the majority
amongst the beneficiaries and while recommending the name of the
present petitioner, the guidelines in connection with Aanganwari Sewika
was violated. The learned counsel submits that, at the same time, the
Deputy Commissioner directed the private respondent to be appointed to
the post of Aanganbari Sewika whose name was never recommended by
Aam Sabha , though she had also participated in the selection process in
Aam Sabha.
4. The learned counsel submits that once the approval to the name of
recommended candidate by Aam Sabha was turned down, the Deputy
Commissioner could not have directed for appointment of other
candidate whose name was never recommended by Aam Sabha though
had participated in the selection process. The learned counsel submits
that the Deputy Commissioner ought to have asked for conduct of fresh
Aam Sabha. The learned counsel submits that in such circumstances, the
impugned order directing appointment of of the private respondent as
Aanganwari Sewika is illegal and not in accordance with law.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the subsequent Aam
Sabha dated 27.01.2011 and he submits that from perusal of the
proceeding sheet, it appears that certain direction was issued by the
Deputy Commissioner to select the private respondent in Aam Sabha
although the name of the private respondent was not acceptable to Aam
Sabha and her name was refused to be recommended.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent, on
the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner did not satisfy the
required qualification of matriculate and was not belonging to the
majority community and therefore, the deputy commissioner has rightly
passed the order. The learned counsel has referred to clause 11 (kha) and
(ga) of Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit with regard to prescribed
circular for selection of Aanganwari Sewika and has also referred to the
required minimum qualification at clause 7 of the circular.
7. However, it is not in dispute even from the side of the private
respondent also that the name of the petitioner was recommended by
Aam Sabha for selection and at any stage, the Selection Committee
present on the spot, had not passed an order of rejection so far as the
candidature of the petitioner is concerned.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported
the submissions advanced on behalf of the private respondent.
9. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
there are certain relaxations with regard to required qualification for
Schedule Caste category candidate as per the circular annexed by the
State in the counter-affidavit.
10. Arguments concluded.
11. Post this case for judgment on 16.01.2023.
Mukul (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
