Jharkhand High Court
Sumita Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 5 September, 2017
Equivalent citations: 2018 (1) AJR 684, (2018) 2 JCR 484 (JHA)
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N. Pathak
1.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3370 of 2016
.....
Sumita Kumari .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Deputy Commissioner Chatra, P.O; P.S. & District Chatra.
3. The District Social Welfare Officer, P.O; P.S. & District Chatra.
4. The Child Development Project Officer, Gidhaur, P.O. & P.S. Gidhaur, District Chatra
5. The Block Development Officer, Gidhaur, P.O. & P.S. Gidhaur, District Chatra.
6. The Circle Officer, Gidhaur, P.O & P.S. Gidhaur, District Chatra.
7. The Woman Supervisor, Gidhaur, P.O. & P.S. Gidhaur, District Chatra.
8. Usha Kumari wife of Vijay Kumar, resident of village & P.O. Duwari, P.S. Gidhaur, District Chatra.
.... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK
For the Petitioner : Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Jayant Franklin Toppo, Advocate
th
06 / Dated 5
September, 2017
The petitioner has approached this court with a prayer for appointment on Additional Aanganbari SewikacumPoshan Pramarshi as she possesses the required qualification for appointment on the post of Additional Aaganbari SewikacumPoshan Pramarshi. Factual Matrix
2. Petitioner is permanent resident of village Duwari which is within the beneficiary area of Aanganbari Centre Duwari East I Code No. 100. A notice regarding appointment of an Additional Aanganbari SewikacumPoshan Pramarshi came on the said centre of Duwari. As per the notification the Lady Supervisor had to collect the forms from the eligible candidates. On 21/11/2015 petitioner submitted her application along with educational certificates as well as other certificates before the respondent no. 7 (the Lady Supervisor). One another candidate i.e. respondent no. 8 also submitted her application for the said appointment. As per regulation 2 which provides for selection of the Aanganbari Sewika or Additional Aanganbari SewikacumPoshan Pramarshi, Block Level Committee comprising with the officers of concerned blocks i.e. Block Development Officer, Circle Officer, Child Development Project Officer and Lady Supervisor of concerned beneficiary area prepared the merit list on 15/1/2016 in which the petitioner has been shown qualified.
3. The minimum qualification for Additional Aanganbari Sewika cumPoshan Pramarshi was matriculation and the petitioner possesses the same. She has passed Matriculation in First Division and has also done Nursery Teacher Training (NTT) and the fact is also admitted by the respondents. Though the respondent no. 8 is graduate but she passed the matriculation examination in third division which is apparent from the certificates submitted by her before the said committee. Rules and guidelines for appointment of Additional Aanganbari SewikacumPoshan Pramarshi provides specific provisions made for appointment and in case of tie the merit list is prepared and candidates who have received higher marks in the matriculation examination will be considered for appointment on the post of Additional Aanganbari SewikacumPoshan Pramarshi which is evident from memo no. 872 dated 1/4/2016. It is specific case of the petitioner that she has secured first division in matriculation and respondent no. 8 has secured third division and only pass is mentioned in her certificate. In view of the specific provisions of memo no. 872 dated 1/4/2016 the petitioner ought to have been appointed for the post of Additional Aanganbari SewikacumPoshan Pramarshi but as the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents for appointment on the aforesaid post, petitioner preferred representation before respondents but the same was not considered and hence this writ petition has been preferred.
4. Mr. Baleshwar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that petitioner's case ought to have been considered by the respondents as she fulfills the required criteria for appointment on the post of Additional Aanganbari Sewikacum 3 Poshan Pramarshi. Learned counsel argues that even taking into account the statutes/rules/guidelines for appointment on the post of Aanganbari Sewika the petitioner's case should have been finalized and not the case of respondent no. 8 as she fulfills the required criteria having minimum qualification that is first division in matriculation.
5. Per contra, no counteraffidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the respondents Ms. Sunita Kumari submits that as no counter affidavit has been filed she is not in a position to say as to why the case of the petitioner was not considered. She very fairly submits that if the petitioner files a fresh representation the same may be considered in accordance with law.
6. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this court is of the considered view that case of the petitioner needs consideration. I hereby direct respondent no. 2 the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra to verify the certificates of the petitioner as well as respondent no. 8. If the case of the petitioner and her certificates is found to be genuine and if the petitioner has secured first division and respondent no. 8 has secured third division, then in view of the guidelines/rules and the statutes the case of the petitioner should be considered in accordance with law for appointment on the post of Additional Aanganbari Sewikacum Poshan Pramarshi.
7. Needless to say that if the case of the petitioner is found fit for appointment, an appointment letter to that effect be issued to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Pallavi/