Jharkhand High Court
Samphool Devi vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 20 November, 2014
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 4449 of 2011
-------
Samphool Devi ..... .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Ors. ... ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate
For the Respondents :M/s L.C.N Shahdeo (G.P-IV) &
S.K. Gautam, J.C to G.P. IV
-------
6/20.11.2014The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 07.06.2011, by which the services of the petitioner as Sahayika has been cancelled, has approached this Court.
It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed as Sahayika by selection which has been made by the village level committee on 12.08.1997 and since then, she was discharging her duty after completion of training. Thereafter, by virtue of the order passed on 07.06.2011 issued by the District Welfare Officer addressed to the Child Development Project Officer, the petitioner has been communicated that Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra has cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the basis of certain allegations. It is submitted on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been appointed on the basis of Government Guideline dated 02.06.2006 contained in Memo No. 585 wherein provision has been made for appointment of Sevika by selection to be made by the village level committee. The petitioner has been selected on the basis of her candidature being found satisfactory by the village level committee. As per the Government Guideline dated 02.06.2006, there is power to remove a Sahayika of an Aanganbari, which has been vested with the Child Development Project Officer after approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner has been vested with the power of appeal. It has been argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 07.06.2011 has been issued with respect to the decision already taken by the Deputy Development Commissioner who has cancelled the selection of the petitioner and hence the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order before this Court on the ground of jurisdiction. Deputy Development Commissioner is not the competent authority who can cancel the selection rather he is the authority who can only approve the decision and thereafter it is submitted that the Child Development Project Officer can cancel the selection. But, since the order dated 7.06.2011 has been passed on the basis of order of cancellation by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra, hence the order dated 7.6.2011 is without any jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that a show cause notice has been issued with respect to altogether different facts but the impugned order has been passed on different grounds and as such the petitioner has not been provided an opportunity to defend herself on the basis of which her selection has been cancelled.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that the order dated 07.06.2011 has been passed after perusing the reply to the show cause notice, however he has not disputed the fact that the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Deputy Development Commissioner.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Admittedly, the petitioner has been appointed as Sahayika of Aanganbari in terms of the order dated 02.06.2006 whereas in Clause 16, it has been provided that the Child Development Project Officer is empowered to cancel the selection of Sahayiaka of Aanganbari with the prior approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner. From the order dated 07.06.2011, it appears that selection has been cancelled by the Deputy Development Commissioner, hence Deputy Development Commissioner has no jurisdiction to cancel the selection of Aanganbari Sahayika, as such the order dated 07.06.2011 is without jurisdiction. On this aspect of the matter the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of "Kanchan Devi Versus State of Jharkhand & Ors" reported in 2014 (4) JLJR 2 wherein it has been held that Deputy Development Commissioner is not the competent authority to pass cancellation order.
The petitioner has impleaded the respondent in question as respondent no.7 but despite notice issued upon her on 12.08.2013 she has not appeared.
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the impugned order dated 07.06.2011 is without any jurisdiction hence the same is hereby quashed. The matter is being remanded before the Child Development Project Officer, Itkhori to take an appropriate decision after hearing both the petitioner as well as respondent no.7 (Smt. Perbila Devi) preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same.
The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Saket/-