Disposed

Ravita Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Feb 2020WPC/761/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the appointment of a rival candidate to an Anganbari Sevika post despite the cancellation of her residential certificate, the High Court at Ranchi directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's pending representation and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's pending representation and pass a reasoned order within four weeks; further direction to communicate any adverse order or issue appointment wit

Ravita Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 761 of 2019

¶3

Ravita Kumari

¶4

… ... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand.

¶7

Deputy Commissioner, Godda.

¶8

The District Social Welfare Officer, Godda.

¶9

The Circle Officer, Poraiyahat, Godda.

¶10

Child Development Project Officer, Poraiyahat, godda.

¶11

Soni Kumari wife of Rajesh Mandal, Godda.

¶12

… … Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N. PATHAK

¶15

-------For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate For the Respondents : A.C. to Sr. (L&C)

¶16

¶17

Order No.05: Dated: 5^th February, 2020

¶18

Per Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.:

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Additional Anganbari Sevika-cum Poshan Pramarshi (Poshan Sakhi) for Aanganbari Centre at villageGangjala, Danre, P.O. Danre, P.S. Proaiyahat, District Godda. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order of recommendation letter dated 21.07.2018 by which the name of the respondent no. 6 has been recommended for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika-cum Poshan Pramarshi (Poshan Sakhi) for the aforesaid centre.

¶20

As per factual matrix, for selection of Additional Anganbari Sevika-cum Poshan Pramarshi (Poshan Sakhi), a Aamsabha was held on 21.12.2015 but the same stood cancelled and again a fresh Aamsabha was held on 21.10.2016 whereby the name of the respondent no. 6 was selected for the said Aanganbari Centre. The petitioner along with respondent no. 6 and others participated in the selection process for Anganbari Sevika-cum Poshan Pramarshi

¶21

(Poshan Sakhi), as per the unanimous decision of Aamsabha respondent no. 6 was recommended and selected for appointment to the post of Additional Anganbari Sevika-cum Poshan Pramarshi (Poshan Sakhi) vide letter dated 21.07.2018, which is annexed as Annesure-6 to the writ petition.

¶22

It is a specific case of the petitioner that the residential certificate issued in favour of respondent no. 6 was cancelled on 02.04.2016 on the ground that the respondent no. 6 does not belong to the said Aanganbari Centre rather she belongs to the centre of different district. Even after cancellation of residential certificate the respondent no. 6 has been recommended for the Aanganbari Centre, Gangjala, Poraiyahat in the District of Godda. Aggrieved by the recommendation of respondent no. 6, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court.

¶23

Mr. Manoj Kr. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urges that the recommendation of the name of respondent no. 6 to the post of Additional Aanganbari Sevika is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same is illegal as the residential certificate of the respondent o. 6 has already been cancelled on the ground that she does not belong to concerned centre i.e., Gangjala village Dare, P.O. Dare, Poriayahat, Godda. Learned counsel further argues that since the petitioner is next to respondent no. 6 in merit and as the residential certificate of respondent no. 6 has been cancelled, her name should be recommended for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika-cum Poshan Pramarshi (Poshan Sakhi).

¶24

Per contra no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that in absence of counter affidavit he is not in a position to say that as to why the name of the respondent no. 6 has been recommended though her residential certificate was cancelled. However, as the petitioner has already made representation before the competent

¶25

authority, a reasoned order be passed on pending representation of the petitioner.

¶26

Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that since already the petitioner has represented before the competent authority, I hereby direct the respondent to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass reasoned order on the pending representation of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

Needless to say that if the petitioner is found entitled for appointment, the appointment letter be issued to her and if any adverse order is passed the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within further period of three weeks.

¶28

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶29

Ravita Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravita Kumari v. the State of Jharkhand

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

Pinki Kumari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suresh Rana Vs Education

Dr Om Prakash Vs Health

Bhagwan Das Yadav Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Thr Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and Anr.

Mohar Ram Das Vs the State of Jharkhand and Ors.

Bikramjeet Singh Vs Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors.