Jharkhand High Court
Baby Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 15 September, 2017
Author: Pramath Patnaik
Bench: Pramath Patnaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 1110 of 2008
-------
Baby Kumari, wife of Hemraj Thakur, resident of Village: Tulbul,
P.O Tulbul, P.S.: Chatra, District: Chatra
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.The Dy. Commissioner, Chatra-cum-Chairman, Aam Sabha.
3.The Dy. Development Commissioner, Chatra
4.The District Programme Officer,Chatra
5.The Child Development Project Officer, Chatra
6.The Circle Officer,Chatra
7.Smt. Rena Kumari, wife of Rajesh Kumar, R/o Village: Tulbul,
P.O Tulbul, P.S.: Chatra, District: Chatra
... ... Respondents
------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Res-State : Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, JC to S.C (L&C)
For Resp. No. 7 : Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate.
------
13/ Dated: 15th September, 2017
Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:
In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia
prayed for quashing the selection of respondent no. 7, who was
selected on the post of Sewika vide order dated 13.12.2007.
2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief, is
that for selection of Sewika of Aganbari Centre at Upri Tulbul,
Chatra a notice was published pursuant to cancellation of
selection of respondent no. 7, whose appointment was cancelled
on the allegation that she produced forged matriculation
certificate. Pursuant to such publication of notice, the petitioner
applied for the same and on being found eligible, she was
selected by Aam Sabha vide its meeting dated 21.08.2007 and
her name was sent before Dy. Commissioner, Chatra for approval.
But, all of a sudden vide order dated 18.09.2007, the petitioner's
selection was cancelled on the ground that the house of the
petitioner does not come under the Poshak Area and again,
respondent no. 7 was selected on the said post vide order dated
13.12.2007after going through fresh selection process.
3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court for redressal of her grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Heard Mr. Binod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sarven Kumar, J.C to learned S.C.(L &C) for the respondents-State and Mr. S.N. Das for the private-respondent no. 7.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is more qualified than respondent no. 7 i.e. she is Intermediate of Arts whereas respondent no. 7 is only Matriculate and further it is admitted case that one criminal case, being Chata P.S. Case No. 269 of 2007 was lodged against respondent no. 7 for submitting forged certificate in spite thereto she was selected. It has further been submitted that petitioner is also fulfilling other criteria for the post in question such as she belongs to the Upri Tulbul Village i.e. Poshak Area, which fact finds support from the report of Circle Officer and further she is Backward Class Candidate falling under Below Poverty Line and considering all these facts, she was selected by the Aam Sabha in its meeting, which is the competent authority for selection of Sewika for Angan bari Centre.
6. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Smt. Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors as reported in 2001 (1) JLJR 237 ; in the case of Kalpana Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2016 (4) JLJR 37 and also in the case of Kanchan Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. as reported in 2014 (4) JLJR 2 .
7. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that there are three Angan Bari Centres, namely, (1).Tulbul Angan Bari centre; (2).Upri Tulbul Angan Bari Centre and (3)Nichla Tola Angan Bari Centre. The petitioner is resident of Tulbul Bari Centre and she does not belong to Upri Tulbul Angan Bari Centre, as per enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer, on the complain made against her that the petitioner does not belong to Poshak area. Hence, the petitioner who does not reside under the Poshak area of Upri Tulbul rather she lives in Chilnya Tola of Tulbul, her recommendation for appointment was cancelled and thereafter and a fresh selection process was started, in which, respondent no. 7 was selected. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that it is true that one criminal case was lodged against respondent no. 7 for submitting forged educational certificate but the said case ended in acquittal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 submitted that in a concocted case, the C.D.P.O, who is instant relative of petitioner, lodged a false case only to harass the respondent and with a view to oust the respondent no. 7 to get employment, but, after trial it resulted in acquittal of the respondent vide judgment dated 11.04.2016, which the respondent has brought on record by filing I.A. No. 5084 of 2017. Furthermore, the respondents- authorities after enquiry found the matriculation certificate of the respondent to be genuine.
9. On perusal of record, it appears that there are two round of selection process. In the first round initially respondent no. 7 was selected, but, her appointment was cancelled on the allegation that she produced forged matriculation certificate, hence, recommendation was made for selection of petitioner but that was also cancelled on the allegation that she does not belong to Poshak Area. In the second round of selection, the respondents- authorities after following due procedure, made selection of respondent no. 7 and after enquiry, it was found that the matriculation certificate submitted by the respondent no. 7 is genuine and furthermore, the criminal case lodged against respondent no. 7 for submitting forged certificate resulted in acquittal. Under such circumstances, the appointment of respondent no. 7 cannot be said to be illegal, who is continuing for the last one decade. On plain reading of case laws cited by the petitioner, it appears that it is of no help to the petitioner.
10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
11. Resultantly, I.A. No. 5084 of 2017 stands disposed of.
(Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-