Patna High Court
Sahjadi Praveen vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 October, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, Anil Kumar Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1994 of 2015
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13523 of 2014
===========================================================
Sahjadi Praveen, wife of Md. Sharif Ansari @ Sharif Alam, Resident of village -
Dahua, Police Station - Bounsi, District - Banka.
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social
Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Indira Bhawan, Baily
Road, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur
4. The Deputy Director Welfare, Bhagalpur Divisional, Bhagalpur
5. The District Magistrate, Banka
6. The District Programme Officer, Banka
7. The Child Development Project Officer, Bounsi, District - Banka
8. Tabassum Ara, Wife of Mumtaj Rejaul Ansari, Resident of village - Dahua,
Police Station - Bounsi, District - Banka
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Roy, Advocate
Mr. Balram Kapri, Advocate
For Respondent No.8 : Mr. Umesh Kumar Verma, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Manish Kumar, AC. to AAG-6
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date: 30-10-2017
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we
find that the appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order
dated18.09.2015 passed by the Writ Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No.13523 of 2014.
Issue in question pertains to appointment of Aanganwari
Sevika to the centre in question. The appellant herein, namely, Sahjadi
Patna High Court LPA No.1994 of 2015 dt.30-10-2017
2/4
Parveen was appointed after selection process was completed in
pursuant to an advertisement issued for appointment vide Annexure-1
to the writ petition on 04.07.2014. After the appellant was appointed,
respondent no.8 challenged her appointment before the Appellate
Authority and the Appellate Authority having allowed the appeal vide
order (Annexure-4) dated 31.03.2014, the matter travelled to the Writ
Court at the instance of the appellant. The Writ Court found that on
the cut off date for calculation of the minimum age of 18 years was on
01.01.2011. As the appellant had not completed 18 years, she was minor and ineligible for appointment and, therefore, on this count alone, finding the order of the Appellate Authority to be unsustainable, dismissed the writ petition. However, it is the case of the appellant before us that the Advertisement no.1 was issued on 4 th of July, 2012. In the advertisement, it has been clearly stipulated that the appointment has to be made strictly in accordance with the guidelines and Niyamawali, 2011 and Clause 4.4. of the Niyamawali reads as under :
"4]4 lsfodk in dh fjfDr ds foKkiu ds izdk'ku ds o"kZ dh izFke tuojh dks u;wure mez lhek 18 o'kZ rFkk vf/kdre mez lhek 40 o"kZ gksxhA"
On 4th of July, 2012, the minimum age of appointment is calculated with reference to 1st January, 2011. The appellant would Patna High Court LPA No.1994 of 2015 dt.30-10-2017 3/4 have within the age criteria and rejecting her claim, even though the respondent 8 opposed the claim of the petitioner.
We find that the Government has issued guideline for appointment and the appointment shall be strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued in the year 2011.
We are of the considered view that the Writ Court has committed an error to that extent and the writ had to be allowed and the impugned order of the Appellate Authority quashed. Accordingly, we allow the appeal to that extent by holding that the appellant had crossed the age of 18 years and was eligible for seeking the appointment. However, the second question pertains to the appellant not being a resident of the area in question and this is an issue which has neither been considered by the Writ Court nor by the learned Appellate Authority in accordance with law.
Accordingly, for considering this aspect of the matter, we remand the matter back to the Appellate Authority, respondent no.5 who is directed to reconsider the question of residence of the appellant in accordance with the requirement of law.
We find that the learned Appellate Authority has dealt with the issue without referring to various documents. Accordingly, we allow this appeal in part holding that the appellant fulfils the age criteria for appointment and remand back the matter to the respondent Patna High Court LPA No.1994 of 2015 dt.30-10-2017 4/4 no.5 for determining the issue pertaining to eligibility of the appellant.
On the respondent no.8 appearing before the Appellate Authority with a certified copy of this order dated 30th of October, 2017, the Appellate Authority shall hear the appellant, respondent no.8 and the department concerned and after following due procedure of law decide the appeal within sixty days.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) N.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 02-11-2017 Transmission Date