Disposed

Purnima Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Sept 2020WPC/3086/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of representation for Anganbari Sevika post claiming eligibility as Bahu. Court disposed application without interfering impugned order, granting liberty to file fresh representation within three months for expenditure on village staff.

What did the court decide?

Disposal of application allowing petitioner to file fresh representation within three months for any village post, to be decided by respondent authority within three months of receipt according to law

Purnima Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

W.P.(S) No.3086 of 2011

¶4

¶5

Purnima Devi … … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

The Secretary Department of Social Welfare Women and Child Development, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi.

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.

¶10

The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-District Programming Officer, Dhanbad.

¶11

The Child Development Project Officer Baliapur, Dhanbad.

¶12

Resma Devi.

¶13

Block Development Officer, Sindri, Dhanbad.

¶14

… … Respondents

¶15

¶16

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶17

¶18

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate For the Res.State : Mr. Manish Mishra, G.P.V

¶19

11/08.09.2020 Heard learned counsel for the parties through

¶20

V.C.

¶21

2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order as contained in memo no.1137 dated 14.12.2010, whereby the representation of the petitioner for selection as Anganbari Sevika /Sahaika for RM 4 Harijan Tola, Baliapur, Dhanbad, has been rejected.

¶22

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation of the petitioner has been rejected in most arbitrary manner and without considering the

¶23

¶24

relevant documents and certificates filed by petitioner showing her to be daughter in law (Bahu) of project area. He further contended that the specific case of the petitioner is that though she is daughter of that village but at the same time her marriage has been solemnized in the same village as such, by virtue of her marriage in the same village, she is also daughter-in-law (Bahu) of that village. He further submits that though at the time of passing of the impugned order and when Aam-Sabha was called, the petitioner had not produced any such certificate, but later on she had procured the relevant certificate; as such, the respondent authority may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in any other post in accordance with law.

¶25

4. Mr. Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the State submits that the aforesaid ground was taken by the petitioner earlier however; she was unable to produce any documents. As such, if she prefers a fresh representation along with documents, her case may be considered provided the rules permits.

¶26

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, I hereby dispose of the instant writ application without interfering with the impugned order with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the respondent no.3 to consider her case for selection on any post, whatsoever, in the same village within a period of

¶27

¶28

three months from today. If any such representation is filed, the respondent no.3 shall decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law, rules & regulations, government notifications and policy decision of the Government.

¶29

6. With the aforesaid observation and direction the instant application is hereby disposed of.

¶30

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶31

Fahim /-

Purnima Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnima 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veena Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Sandeep Mitra Vs Dhanbad Municipal Corporation through Its Chief Executive Officer and Anr.

Tuhina Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand And Others

Mritunjay Singh And Ors. Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. And Ors.

Basudeo Ram Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Pramod Kumar Jha Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.