Dismissed

Rubi Kumari Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC21 Feb 2018WPC/5027/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged her non-appointment as Angan Badi Sewika, claiming violation of constitutional rights. The court held that as the center was dominated by the Scheduled Caste community and rules required selection from the dominated population, the petitioner belonged to the Backward Class, no illegality was made out.

What did the court decide?

Direction to appoint the petitioner on the post of Angan Badi Sewika dismissed.

Rubi Kumari Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P. (S) No. 5027 of 2010

¶3

Rubi Kumari (Devi) wife of Sri Arjun Nayak, resident of village Bandasinga, Harijan Tola, P.O Belkapi, P.S. Gorhar, DistrictHazaribagh. ... Petitioner

¶4

Vs.

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

2.Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh

¶7

3.District Welfare Officer, Hazaribagh.

¶8

4.Child Development Project Officer, Barkatha.

¶9

5.Block Development Officer, Barkatha Block, Barkatha, DistrictHazaribagh. .… … ... Respondents

¶10

-----CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK

¶11

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, J.C to G.P IV

¶12

06 / Dated: 21st February, 2018 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.:

¶13

In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Angan Badi Sewika at Harijan Tola, Bandasingha Centre.

¶14

2. The facts, in brief, is that in pursuance to notice dated 02.09.2009 a general meeting was convened on 11.09.2009 under the Chairmanship of respondent no. 4 for appointment of Angan Badi Sewika at Harijan Tola, Bandasingha Centre, in which, the petitioner along with other candidates participated and name of the petitioner was forwarded for approval by the respondent no. 3-District Welfare Officer but for the one pretext or other, the petitioner was not appointed. Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of her grievances.

¶15

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that selection of the petitioner was done as per the rules and guidelines meant for it and even though she has been denied appointment, which is violative of Article 14 and 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India. It has further been submitted that in pursuance to order dated 06^th July, 2017 passed by this Court, the respondents have filed

¶16

supplementary counter affidavit stating therein that till date no selection has been made on the post in question. Under such circumstance, a direction may be issued for appointment of the petitioner on the post in question.

¶17

4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Angan Bari Centre, Bandasingha falling within the Barkatta Block of District Hazaribagh was meant for selection of Angan Bari Sevika from amongst members of Scheduled Caste community and the petitioner belongs to Backward Class and as per the Rules of selection of Angan Bari Sevika, Sevika is to be selected amongst dominated caste of the Poshak Chetra; hence, she has rightly been denied appointment. It has further been submitted that it is true that in pursuance to notice Aam Sabha was held on 11.09.2009 and the selection of the petitioner was initially forwarded for approval. But, on the representation given by the villagers of the said Centre regarding illegal selection and coming to knowledge of the fact that it is scheduled caste dominated area; approval of her selection was refused.

¶18

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of record, it appears that Angan Bari Centre in question was a scheduled caste community dominated area and the petitioner belongs to backward class. Admittedly, as per Guidelines of selection on the post of Angan Bari Sevika, sevika is to be selected amongst the dominated population. Hence, no illegality is made out so as to warrant interference by this Court.

¶19

6. Accordingly, writ application stands dismissed.

¶20

(Pramath Patnaik, J.)

¶21

Alankar/-

Rubi Kumari Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rubi Kumari Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipin Bihari Mahto and Ors. Vs Human Resources Department

Amit Kumar Singh Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sunil Kumar Sen Vs M/S Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And O

Mostt.Urmila Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Shyam Narayan Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Jagdish Bhuian Vs Union of India And Ors.