Patna High Court - Orders
Smt.Renu Sahi vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 November, 2014
Author: Anjana Mishra
Bench: Anjana Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1669 of 2013
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7112 of 2013
======================================================
1. Smt.Renu Sahi W/O Sri Chandan Prasad Sahi R/O Village
+ Post- Pratap Tand, P.S- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary,
Social Welfare Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur.
3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali
4. The District Welfare Officer, Vaishali At Hajipur.
5. The Sub- Divisional Officer Sadar Hajipur, District-
Vaishali.
6. The Child Development Project Officer, Bhagwanpur
Block, District- Vaishali.
7. The Gram Panchayat Raj, Pratap Tard West, Through The
Panchayat Secretary, P.S And Block Bhagwanpur,
District- Vaishali.
8. The Mukhiya Cum Chairman, Gram Panchayat Raj,
Pratap Tand West, P.S And Block Bhagwanpur, District-
Vaishali.
9. Nirmala Kumari W/O Sri Sanjay Kumar R/O Pratap Tand
West Wardno. 1, P.S- Block Bhagwanpur, District-
Vaishali.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh, SC-15
Mr. S.K. Ranjan, AC to SC-15.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
AND
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA
CAV ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI)
4 14-11-2014For selection of Aanganbari Sevika, for Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 2 Aanganbari Centre Nos. 155 and 156, altogether 28 applications were received. These applications were segregated feeder area wise. Following an Aam Sabha, which was claimed to have been held in order to select Aanganbari Sevika for Centre No. 155, the appellant herein, namely, Renu Sahi, a candidate, belonging to general category, was nominated and, upon completion of her training, she was appointed accordingly. A complaint was, thereafter, addressed to the District Magistrate, Vaishali, made, on 21.05.2007, by respondent No. 9 herein, namely, Nirmala Kumari. This complaint came to be registered as Misc. Case No. 85 of 2007-08 and a proceeding was initiated by the respondent No. 3 herein, namely, District Magistrate, Vaishali, who, by order, dated 21.02.2009, set aside the selection of the present appellant, namely, Renu Sahi, on the ground, inter alia, that the selection process was manipulated, unfair and illegal and, therefore, a fresh selection process was directed to be resorted to.
2. Aggrieved by the termination of her selection, the present appellant, namely, Renu Sahi, preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, who, by order, dated 23.08.2010, set aside, as the Appellate Authority, the order, dated 21.02.2009, passed by respondent No. 3, namely, District Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 3 Magistrate, Vaishali, whereby the appellant's appointment, as Aanganbari Sevika, in respect of Aanganbari Centre No. 155, had been set aside.
3. Aggrieved by the order, dated 23.08.2010, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, as the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 9 herein, namely, Nirmala Kumari, came to this Court with a writ application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to CWJC No. 2247 of 2012, whereby the learned Appellate Authority's order, dated 23.08.2010, was put to challenge.
4. A learned single Judge of this Court noted, in CWJC No. 2247 of 2012, that although it was Nirmala Kumari, whose complaint had led to the termination of the appointment of Renu Sahi, she had not been given any notice by the learned Appellate Authority and had not been heard at all before the order, dated 21.02.2009, passed by District Magistrate, Vaishali, terminating the selection and appointment of Renu Sahi, was set aside by the learned Appellate Authority by order, dated 23.08.2010.
5. As indicated by the order, dated 03.04.2012, passed in CWJC No. 2247 of 2012, it was, in fact, conceded, on behalf of the present appellant, that no notice had been issued to Nirmala Kumari, who was the Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 4 complainant and whose complaint had led to the termination of the appointment of Renu Sahi.
6. By the order, dated 03.04.2012, a learned single Judge of this Court, therefore, without entering into the merit of the order, dated 23.08.2010, aforementioned, passed by the Appellate Authority, namely, Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, set aside on the ground that no such order could have been made without giving notice to Nirmala Kumari and, therefore, remanded the matter to the learned Appellate Authority, for disposal, in accordance with law, by making a reasoned and speaking order.
7. Following the order, dated 03.04.2012, both the appeals, namely, Service Appeal No. 76 of 2009, preferred by Renu Sahi, as well as Service Appeal No. 235 of 2011, preferred by Nirmala Kumari, were heard and disposed of by a common order, dated 18.12.2012, whereby the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, as the Appellate Authority, while upholding the order, dated 21.02.2009, passed by District Magistrate, Vaishali, concurred with the conclusion of the District Magistrate, Vaishali, that the selection process, in question, was not fair and that in the facts and attending circumstances of the case at hand, the cancellation of the Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 5 appointment of Renu Sahi and the direction, given by the District Magistrate, Vaishali, to resort to a fresh selection process to select an Aanganbari Sevika in respect of Aanganbari Centre No. 155, were wholly justified and in accordance with law.
8. Aggrieved by the order, dated 18.12.2012, it was the present appellant, Renu Sahi, who came to this Court, by making an application, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking, inter alia, issuance of writ setting aside and quashing the orders, dated 18.12.2012, passed by Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, affirming the order, dated 21.02.2009, passed by District Magistrate, Vaishali, and also commanding the State-respondents to appoint the present appellant as Aanganbari Sevika in respect of Aanganbari Centre No. 155 and to pay her back wages. The writ petition gave rise to CWJC No. 7112 of 2013, which was disposed of, on 03.05.2013, by a learned single Judge of this Court, who took the view that the order, dated 21.02.2009, passed by District Magistrate, Vaishali, as well as the order, dated 18.12.2012, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, as Appellate Authority, were well reasoned orders, which did not warrant any interference by the High Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 6 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, directed that the post of Aanganbari Sevika, in respect of Centre No. 155, be re-advertised and if the writ petitioner (i.e. the present appellant) is found eligible in every respect, her application, too, shall be considered along with the applications of other eligible candidates, who may apply. It is the order, dated 03.05.2013, passed by the learned single Judge, upholding the order of the Appellate Authority, which stands impugned in the present appeal
9. We have heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. Ajit Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel No. 15, appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
10. While considering the present appeal, what needs to be point out is that the learned Appellate Authority, while making the order, dated 18.12.2012, has clearly noted that Nirmala Kumari (i.e., respondent No. 9 herein) had put to challenge the legality of the appointment of Renu Sahi (i.e., the appellant herein), as Aanganbari Sevika, by the Aam Sabha on the ground that the Aanganbari Centre, in question, was an O.B.C. majority area and she (i.e. Nirmala Kumari) was a member of the O.B.C. community, whereas Renu Sahi, belonging to general category, was selected by resorting to a Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 7 manipulative process of selection inasmuch as the proceedings of the Aam Sabha, with regard to the selection of Renu Sahi, were manufactured and manipulated and, in this regard, as many as 4 (four) persons had sworn an affidavit, which was submitted to District Magistrate, Vaishali, averring to the effect that although they were shown to have been present in the proceedings of the Aam Sabha, their signatures were actually forged. This apart, the learned Appellate Authority also noticed that Nirmala Kumari had higher academic qualification than that of Renu Sahi inasmuch as Nirmala Kumari had passed Intermediate Examination, whereas Renu Sahi was only a matriculate.
11. Coupled with the above, the learned Appellate Authority pointed out that the order of the District Magistrate, Vaishali, shows that altogether 28 applications were received for Centre Nos. 155 and 156 and the applications, so received, were segregated according to the Centre Code meaning thereby that the applications, made for Centre Code No. 155, were separated from the applications made for the Centre Code No. 156 and, out of the 10 (ten) applications, which had been received in respect of Centre Code No. 155 (i.e., from the feeder area of Centre No. 155), as many as 9 (nine) applications were Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 8 rejected on the following grounds.
1. Nirmala W/o Sanjay OBC, Centre Kumari Kumar Name and Code Number not mentioned
2. Seema W/o Sanjeev Out of feeder Kumari Kumar area
3. Vibha Kumari W/o Sanjiv Father-in-law Kumar is Sarpanch
4. Sangita W/o Sanjiv Application in Kumari Kumar not proper Chaurasia form and Coe No. of Centre not indicated
5. Asha Kumari W/o Sanjiv Centre Code, Kumar Code No., name of village not indicated
6. Meena W/o Lakshman Do Kumari Kumar Chaurasia
7. Kiran Bala W/o Arbind Do Kumari Kumar Shrivastava
8. Punam W/o Rajiv Do Kumari Kumar Chaurasia
9. Rekha Kumari W/o Munna Out of feeder Paswan area Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 9 1 Renu Sahi W/o Chandan General
0. Prasad Sahi Category Selected
12. The learned Appellate Authority also pointed out that the Aam Sabha was held under the chairmanship of Mukhiya, but does not bear the signature of the Observer (i.e., the Child Development Programme Officer) and that from the mapping register, it also transpired that 7 (seven) applicants belong to the feeder area, whose applications were rejected on minor technical grounds. In this regard, the Appellant Authority also pointed out that the Selection Committee, headed by the Mukhiya, already knew that 7 (seven) of the applicants belong to the feeder area, yet they rejected the applications on technical ground that the Centre Number and/or name had not been mentioned by the candidates in their respective applications and that the District Magistrate, Vaishali, was correct in observing, in this regard, that since the applications had already been segregated centre wise, there was no point in rejecting the applications on the basis of absence of the name and/or the number of the feeder centre, when some of the candidates were more qualified compared to the one, who was selected (i.e., the present appellant). For the reasons as indicated Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 10 hereinbefore, the learned Appellate Authority concurred with the conclusion of District Magistrate, Vaishali, that the selection process, in question, was manipulated and not fair, and hence, the cancellation of appointment of Renu Sahi by the District Magistrate, Vaishali, was correct and that the fresh selection process, in this regard, has been correctly and validly ordered
13. Having closely examined the reasons assigned and the conclusions reached by the learned Appellate Authority, the learned single Judge took the view that in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, the resultant direction of the District Magistrate, Vaishali, to go for a selection afresh, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority, does not call for any interference. In this regard, the learned single Judge has also pointed out that the schemes, whereunder the appointments of Aanganbari Sevikas are made, indicate that a person, who comes to be appointed as Aanganbari Sevika, must belong to the majority group of the population forming the aanganbari centre and the guidelines of the Government, issued in this regard, do, therefore, take into account this aspect of requirement, while making appointment to the post of Aanganbari Sevika. With the conclusions so reached, as indicated hereinbefore, the learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 11
14. At the time of hearing of this appeal, it has been submitted, on behalf of the appellant, that since there were altogether 10 (ten) applicants and, out of them, as many as 9 (nine) of the applicants were disqualified, on one ground or the other, leaving the present appellant as the lone candidate in the fray, the present appellant ought to have been appointed, and was rightly appointed, as Aanganbari Sevika and, therefore, her appointment ought not to have been interfered with.
15. We find no force in the submission so made on behalf of the appellant herein. In the selection process, when 10 (ten) applications were received and as many as 9 (nine) were rejected, no inter-se merit of the tenth candidate (i.e. the appellant herein) was determined. Thus, the present appellant was appointed merely on the ground that she was the lone candidate for the post of Aanganbari Sevika of Aanganbari Centre No. 155 and not that she was a deserving candidate. This apart, as already indicated above, cogent reasons exist on record for the District Magistrate, Vaishali, to interfere with the appointment of the present appellant. We find no infirmity, legal or factual, in the reasonings assigned by District Magistrate, Vaishali, and/or by the learned Appellate Authority, in coming to the conclusion, which they have reached, that the selection process was manipulated and Patna High Court LPA No.1669 of 2013 (4) dt.14-11-2014 12 the candidature of many of the candidates were rejected on such grounds, which were not tenable in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case. By not interfering with the order, which was passed by the District Magistrate, Vaishali, and/or by the learned Appellate Authority, the learned single Judge, in our considered view, committed no error either on fact or in law.
16. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this appeal is not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed.
17. No order as to costs.
(I. A. Ansari, J.)
Anjana Mishra, J.: I agree.
(Anjana Mishra, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T X