Disposed

Paira Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC2 Sept 2020WPC/5884/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's termination and non-appointment. Instead of quashing the termination, the Court directed the State to fill the vacant post within six months via proper selection while allowing the petitioner's prior experience to count towards future eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Post to be filled within six months; petitioner's prior service to count as experience for future appointments.

Paira Devi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5884 of 2011

¶3

Paira Devi ..… Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3.Deputy Commissioner, Palamau 4.The District Development Commissioner, Palamau 5.The District Programme Officer, Palamau 6.The Block Development Officer, Palamau 7.The Child Development, Panki, Palamau .....

¶6

..... Respondents

¶7

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶9

--------For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalit Kr. Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rohit Sinha, Advocate ---------

¶10

04/ 02.09.2020 Heard through V.C.

¶11

2. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order as contained in memo no.833 dated 16.08.2010 passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the representation of the petitioner filed in compliance to the order of this Court in W.P.(S) No.576 of 2010 was rejected; and also for a direction upon the respondents regarding continuation of her service for the post of Anganbari Sahayika from date of her real appointment i.e. on 17.06.2007 in connection with Anganbari Centre situated at village Kotya Didra, Panki, Palamau with all monetary benefits.

¶12

3. The case of the petitioner is that the Child Development Project Officer, Panki, Palamau has issued a public notice for the appointment of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika in 21 newly approved Anganbari Centre in the district of Palamau. Subsequently, after the deliberation of the Gram Sabha and the finding of suitability, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Anganbari Sahayika and thereafter she was sent for training. However, all of a

¶13

¶14

sudden the petitioner has been terminated by the recommendation of Anushravan Samittee vide memo No.696 dated 26.12.2008.

¶15

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order of termination was issued without any show cause or any enquiry. Learned counsel further submits that the termination of the petitioner and also the impugned order dated 16.08.2010 is without any basis and non-est in the eye of law and it is also against the norms of the Government's notification as provided in the case of Anganbari Sahayika as such, the impugned order may be quashed and the respondent authorities be directed to consider the case of the petitioner.

¶16

5. Learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the stand taken in the counter affidavit and submitted inter alia that in compliance of the order dated 03.05.2010 of this Court passed in WPS No.576/2010, the Deputy Commissioner fixed 10.08.2010 as date for hearing and issued notice vide letter No.798 L.S. dated 7.8.2010 and also informed the Child Development Project Officer, Panki to present the case of the State. After hearing the parties, the Deputy Commissioner held that Aam Sabha was not conducted in accordance with rules and fresh Aam Sabha was ordered.

¶17

6. The case was heard at length on 09.07.2020 and the learned counsel for the State was directed to seek instruction as to whether any fresh appointment of Anganbari Sahayika for Anganbari Centre at village Kotya Didra, P.O. & P.S. - Panki, District- Palamau has been made or not.

¶18

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner stating inter alia that the post of Anganbari Sahayika in

¶19

¶20

Anganbari Centre at village Kotya Bidra is still vacant and till date no fresh appointment has been made by the respondents.

¶21

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, I dispose of the instant writ application without interfering with the termination order, by giving direction to the respondent No.2 to fill the post of Anganbari Sahaiyika for Anganbari Centre at village Kotya Didra, P.O. & P.S. - Panki, District- Palamau in accordance with the Government's notifications after following due process of selection as directed by the Government from time to time. Since the very post of Anganbari Sahayika in Anganbari Centre is vacant, the petitioner will be at liberty to apply for the same when the post is advertised.

¶22

9. It is made clear that since the petitioner has already worked for 1½years, her experience shall be considered because admittedly, the termination was caused because the procedure for appointment was not followed in accordance with the notification; and there was no fault on part of the petitioner.

¶23

10. It is made clear that the entire exercise for appointment of fresh Anganbari Sahayika for Anganbari Centre at village Kotya Didra, P.O. & P.S. - Panki, District- Palamau shall be completed within a period of six months from today.

¶24

11. With the aforesaid directions, the instant application is disposed of.

¶25

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶26

Pramanik/

Paira Devi v. State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paira 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

Smt Vinita Singh and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Mukut Dhari Mahato Vs Human Resources Department

Prabhat Ranjan Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Sharda Prasad Singh and Anr. Vs Hazaribagh Central Co. Operative Bank Ltd. Thr Its Managing Director and Ors.

S.M.Eqbal Vs Union of India And Ors.

Rathendra Bisnu Nanhen Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.