Petitioner sought direction for appointment as Anganbari Sewika. Court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondents to pass a reasoned order on pending representation or hold a fresh Aam Sabha within six weeks.
Direct respondents to pass a reasoned order on pending representation or hold a fresh Aam Sabha within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 373 of 2019
Pinki Kumari
Petitioner
Versus
... .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Jagdish, AC to GP-V
---
06/ 04.02.2020 The writ petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sewika at Primary Health Sub-Centre, Aanganbari, Chatro situated at Ward No.11 of Chatro Gram Panchayat under C.D. Block, Deori, Giridih on the basis of Aam Sabha held on 01.06.2011 as the petitioner is only deserving candidate of the feeding area of the aforesaid Aaganbari Centre.
Earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.6222 of 2011 for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Aaganbari Sewika, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner along with others for appointment to the said post, in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred a representation before the respondents, requesting therein to take a final decision. Subsequently, the respondents after thorough inquiry and due verification, cancalled the
2
appointment of Uma Kumari on the ground that the appointment was not in accordance with law and procedures were not followed as she was residing beyond the feeding area of Aanganbari Kendra, Chatro. Aggrieved by the same, the said Uma Kumari, challenged the order of cancellation before this Court in W.P.(S) No.2390/2013, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2017 and order of cancellation was upheld by this Court and no illegality was found in cancellation of her appointment. As the cancallation of appointment of Uma Kumari was upheld by this Court, this petitioner, who was next in the merit list made a representation for consideration of her case for appointment, but no order has been passed till date on the representation and hence, she has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
Mr. P.K. Mukhopdhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this case has got a chequered history and for the third times, writ petition has been preferred for appointment to the post of Aaganbari Sevika in the said Centre, but the respondents are not taking a decision though several directions have been issued by this Court. He further argues that suffice it would be, if a direction is given to the respondents to take a decision on the pending representation of the petitioner as admittedly, the name of the petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 2 in the merit list. Since appointment of Uma Kumari, whose name was at Sl. No.1 has already been cancelled, it is incumbent upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post.
On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Jagdish, learned counsel for the respondents submits that since the initial appointment was done in the year, 2011 itself and as such, a direction be issued to respondents for holding a fresh Aam Sabha and whoever is considered fit for appointment to the post of Aaganbari Sevika, her case shall be considered in accordance with law.
Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, without going into the merits of this case, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner and if it is found that petitioner is still entitled for appointment, her case should be considered, in accordance with law. However, respondents are at liberty to hold a fresh Aam Sabha, inviting application from eligible candidates and consider the case of the petitioner, if she applies afresh and found fit for appointment, in accordance with law. Let the entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
/punit/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner is entitled to appointment to the post of Anganbari Sewika after previous candidates were found ineligible.
Whether the respondents should be directed to decide the pending representation or hold a fresh Aam Sabha for appointment.
Pinki Kumari
The State of Jharkhand
The Principal Secretary, Department of Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand
The Director, Social Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand
The Commissioner, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag
The Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
Dr. S. N. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
