Disposed

Sharmila Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Social Welfare

Jharkhand HC2 Mar 2021WPC/2096/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent no.7 as Anganbari Sevika claiming procedural violations in selection. Court held the Deputy Commissioner was the competent authority pending a decision on the petitioner's earlier representation and directed the petitioners to file a fresh representation.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Deputy Commissioner; directing the Deputy Commissioner to decide and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

Sharmila Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through the… — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.2096 of 2018

¶2

------

¶3

Sharmila Devi (age 24 years) W/o Sri Gautam Kumar Yadav, resident of Village Taratanr, P.O. Paharidih, P.S. Sarwan, District Deoghar (Jharkhand)

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶7

The Director, Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, Social Welfare Directorate, P.O. and P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi (Jharkhand)

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar (Jharkhand)

¶9

The D.D.C., Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar (Jharkhand)

¶10

The District Social Welfare Officer, Deoghar, P.O., P.S. and District Deoghar (Jharkhand)

¶11

The Child Development Programme Officer, Sarwan, P.O. & P.S. Sarwan, District Deoghar (Jharkhand)

¶12

Smt. Rinku Devi W/o Sri Nand Kishore Yadav, resident of Village Taratanr, P.O. Paharidih, P.S. Sarwan, District Deoghar (Jharkhand)

¶13

.... .... .... Respondents

¶14

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶15

For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. P. C. Roy, S.C. (L & C)-I ------

¶16

05/02.03.2021 Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. C. Roy, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶17

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

¶18

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing of the order dated 12.07.2013. Prayer for cancellation of appointment of respondent no.7 is also made in the writ petition.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the light of Clause 11 (ka) of the Government Circular dated 02.06.2006 it has been held that notice convening the meeting to consider the candidature for the post of “Anganbari Sevika” will be of 15 days’ notice. He submits that the petitioner is having more qualification than respondent no.7 in the light of Clause 7(ka) of the said circular. An Aam Sabha was held on 12.07.2013 under the Chairmanship of Child Development Programme Officer and respondent no.7 was appointed as Anganbari Sevika deviating the selection

¶20

¶21

process as per Clause 7(ka) and Clause 11 (ka) of the said Government Circular and 15 days’ rider of publication of notice has not been considered. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already approached before Deputy Commissioner but no decision has been taken as yet.

¶22

Mr. P.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the representation of the petitioner is still pending before the Deputy Commissioner and the writ petition can be disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision as he is the competent authority with regard to grievance of the petitioner.

¶23

In view of above facts and considering the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner is directed to move before the Deputy Commissioner by way of filing fresh representation within a period of two weeks. If such representation is filed within the aforesaid period, the Deputy Commissioner shall take a decision in accordance with Rules, Regulations and Guidelines and will pass reasoned order within a period of eight weeks further thereafter.

¶24

With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J . )

¶26

Anit

Sharmila Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Social Welfare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharmila Devi v. the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Department of Social Welfare

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

Mohit Sharma Vs State of Jharkhand through Its Chief Secretary

Fulena Devi Vs Home Department

Savita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Child Welfare Social Development Department

Anil Kumar Vs State of Jharkhand

D P Sinha Vs Ms Coal India Limited through Its Chairman

Dr Jadav Dutta Vs State of Jharkhand