Jharkhand High Court
Gita Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 August, 2025
Author: Rajesh Shankar
Bench: Rajesh Shankar
2025:JHHC:23099-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 208 of 2024
Gita Kumari, wife of Mukti Nath Mahato, resident of Narkopi, P.O.-
Dumdumi, P.S.- Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Dhanbad
4. The District Social Welfare Officer, Dhanbad
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Topchanchi, District-
Dhanbad
6. Pushpa Kumari, wife of Bhaskar Prasad, resident of Narkopi,
P.O.- Dumdumi, P.S.- Topchanchi, District- Dhanbad
... ... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
For the Appellant :Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate
For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 5 :Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, AC to SC (L&C)-I
For the Resp. No. 6 :None
Order No. 08 Dated: 11.08.2025
The present interlocutory application has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 119
days in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal challenging the
judgment/order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2380 of 2023.
2. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 6.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 has no
objection to the said application.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and for the
reasons stated in the present interlocutory application, the delay of
119 days in filing the instant Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.
5. I.A. No. 777 of 2025 is accordingly allowed.
2025:JHHC:23099-DB
6. Aggrieved with the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 2380 of 2023, the writ
petitioner/appellant has filed the instant appeal.
7. The appellant was appointed as "Angan Bari Sahaika" at
'Angan Bari Center, Dumdumi' at Child Development Project,
Topchanchi on 10.06.2014 and was also discharging the duties of
"Angan Bari Sevika" in absence of regularly appointed "Angan Bari
Sevika". She had filed the writ petition claiming relaxation in age for
the post of "Angan Bari Sevika" solely on the ground that she had
been working as "Angan Bari Sahaika" since 10.06.2014.
8. Prescribing of qualification is a sole prerogative of the
employer and the courts are normally loath to interfere with such
qualifications unless strong grounds for assailing the same are made
out. As far as relaxation of qualification is concerned, it's again the
sole prerogative of the employer and the court siting in its writ
jurisdiction cannot relax such qualifications even in the hardest cases.
9. Here is a case where the petitioner had accepted the post of
"Angan Bari Sevika" with open eyes and merely because she was
working as "Angan Bari Sevika" in exceptional circumstances and
solely for the reason that there was no regular appointment of
"Angan Bari Sevika", that by itself cannot be exception for the
petitioner to lay claim to the said post, that too, by seeking relaxation
in age. In such circumstances, the writ court was absolutely right in
dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that
her services were to be governed by the rules, regulations and the
2025:JHHC:23099-DB
norms of selection for the process of "Angan Bari Sevika" and she of
her own could not claim any age relaxation which otherwise is not
available under the rules.
10. We find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly
dismissed without there being parties to pay the cost.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan, C.J.)
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
N.A.F.R.
Manish/Ritesh
