Anuradha Kumari Aged About 29 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2024

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Anuradha Kumari Aged About 29 Years vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 May, 2024

Bench: Navneet Kumar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   LPA No.80 of 2024
Anuradha Kumari aged about 29 years, W/o Tripurari Ram, Resident of
Village: Khapkataiya, PO- Kurhat Kataiya, PS- Hariharganj, Dist: Palamu,
Jharkhand                                           ... ... Appellant
                                Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Social Welfare, Women and Child Development
Department, Government of Jharkhand, Project Building, P.O. & P.S.:
Dhurwa, Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand,
3. The Chairperson, The State Commission for Protection of Child Right,
Collectorate Building, A- Block, 1st Floor, P.O.- G.P.O. & P.S: Kotwali,
Dist: Ranchi, Jharkhand,
4. Deputy Commissioner, Palamu, P.O.-
Daltonganj, P.S.- Daltonganj, Dist- Palamu, Jharkhand,
5. District Social Welfare Officer, Palamu, P.Ο.- Daltonganj, P.S.-
Daltonganj, Dist- Palamu, Jharkhand,
6. Child Development Project Officer, Hariharganj Block, P.O.- Hariharganj,
P.S.- Hariharganj, Dist- Palamu, Jharkhand,
7. Sarswati Kumari W/o Sheo Kumar Pawan, Resident of Village:
Khapkataiya, PO- Kurhat Kataiya                   ... ... Respondents
                                  -----

CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR

--------

For the Appellant : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Mishra, GP-V Order No.3/ Dated 1st May, 2024 I.A. No.2369 of 2024 This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 164 days in preferring LPA No.80 of 2024.

2. We are satisfied with the cause shown by the appellant in the application, and, therefore the delay of 164 days in preferring the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

3. I.A. No.2369 of 2024 is, accordingly, allowed.

LPA No.80 of 2024

4. The dispute regarding appointment of the respondent No.7 was brought before the writ Court in WP(S) No.5956 of 2018.

5. The writ petitioner raised a specific plea that the respondent No.7 not being a resident of Khapkatiya-I Centre, Hariharganj could not have been appointed on the post of Anganwari Sevika. The appellant approached the writ Court with the following prayers:-

"(a) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/direction in the nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the appointment of the Respondent no. 7, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Hariharganj, Palamu whereby and whereunder, without fallows the rule regulation has been appointed with collusion of the Respondent No.7.

And/Or

(b) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ order/direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika for the Centre Khapkatya-I in Village: Khapkataiya, PO- KurhatKataiya, PS-

Hariharganj, Dist: Palamu, Jharkhand.

And/Or

(c) Pass any other order/writ/direction as your Lordship may deem fit & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and accordance with law."

6. However, this is not in dispute that the appellant and the respondent No.7 were residents of the same village within Hariharganj P.S. The appellant who did not produce a caste certificate was not considered for appointment to the post of Anganwari Sevika. Before the writ Court, the State of Jharkhand pleaded that only after the appellant found that she was not selected for appointment to the post of Anganwari Sevika she approached the writ Court. This is too well settled a law that the writ Court shall not interfere with the administrative decisions and, that too, at the instance of the aggrieved party who did not produce the caste certificate to claim appointment under S.C. Category.

7. The writ Court held as under:-

"6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and having gone through the materials on record, this Court is of the considered views that rightly the case of the petitioner has been rejected. She does not fulfil the requisite qualification. Her claim for reserved category has been rejected, as she did not produce the certificate showing her belonging to scheduled caste. The post of Aganbari Sevika was reserved for scheduled caste category for the said Centre. In absence of any certificate produced by her, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity in rejecting the candidature of petitioner and appointment of respondent no.7.

2 LPA No.80 of 2024

7. There is no merit in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed."

8. Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant has endeavored to demonstrate that the stand taken by the State of Jharkhand is not borne from the records. If that is so, the writ petition filed by the appellant was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the threshold. This is well settled that a writ petition involving the disputed questions of fact shall not be entertained.

9. While so, LPA No.80 of 2024 is dismissed.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.) (Navneet Kumar, J.) R.Kumar 3 LPA No.80 of 2024

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court