Disposed

Marufa Khatun v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC13 Sept 2024WPC/6114/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged cancellation of her proposal for appointment as Aanganbari Sevika. Court directed District Collector to verify eligibility against notification in vogue at time of selection and pass necessary order within 16 weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Respondent 3 to verify petitioner's eligibility against the notification in vogue at the time of Aam Sabha and pass necessary order within 16 weeks.

Marufa Khatun Vs the State of Jharkhand — Service and Employment | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S) No. 6114 of 2023

¶3

¶4

Marufa Khatun aged about 25 years, wife of Md. Khurshid Alam, resident of Gangadda-1, P.O.Radipur, P.S. Maheshpur District-Pakur (Jharkhand).

¶5

.............Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand.

¶8

Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security through its Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District- Ranchi (Jharkhand).

¶9

The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur (Jharkhand).

¶10

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur (Jharkhand).

¶11

The District Social Welfare Officer, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur (Jharkhand).

¶12

The Child Development Project Officer, Maheshpur, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Maheshpur, DistrictPakur (Jharkhand).

¶13

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

¶14

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶15

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C (L&C)-II

¶17

07/13.09.2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein to quash the order as contained in Letter no. 1754 dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure-5), issued by respondent no. 5; whereby the respondent no. 6 has been informed that the petitioner’s proposal for approval has been cancelled by the respondent no. 4.

¶19

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly qualified and has been selected in the Village Aam Sabha conducted for the purpose of appointment of Aanganbari Sevika for the centre Gangadda-1.

¶20

He further draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-5, which is basically a communication between the

¶21

¶22

respondent departments indicating therein that the case of the petitioner has been rejected in view of the fact that her selection has been made in contravention to the Notification no. 2239 dated 30.09.2022. As a matter of fact, when the petitioner enquired about the matter, she was informed and given this letter which has been annexed with this writ application.

¶23

Ld. Sr. counsel further submits that the petitioner was fully eligible; inasmuch as, she is M.A and belongs to particular village and as such the said letter is coming on the way of her appointment.

¶24

4. Learned counsel for the respondents draws attention of this Court towards para-16 of the counter affidavit and submits that the Rules regarding the selection of Aanganbari Sewika and Sahaeka has been re-notified vide Notification no. 2239 dated 30.09.2022 with regard to age and educational qualification and the instant Aam Sabha was called in pursuance of earlier notification and since the new notification was in existence; the Aam Sabha should have been called for in view of that and any recommendation made thereof for selection of any candidate ought to have been made in view of that only.

¶25

5. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the stand of the respondents is only to the effect that Village Aam Sabha was conducted pursuant to the earlier notification and it should have been conducted as per new notification; however it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is lacking in any of the eligibility criteria.

¶26

6. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of by directing the respondent no. 3 to look into the matter and if the petitioner satisfies all the criteria of the notification which was in vogue at the time of Aam Sabha; then necessary order

¶27

¶28

¶29

be passed. Since there is no averment in the counter affidavit that the post of Aanganbari Sevika has been filled up, accordingly if the decision goes in favour of the petitioner, after verification of the records of the petitioner, coupled with the notification, which was in vogue at the time of Aam Sabha; then necessary order for approval be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶31

7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant application stands disposed of.

¶32

Marufa Khatun v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Marufa Khatun 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

Rakesh Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand through Secretary, Agriculture and Sugarcane Development Department

Gonolal Soren Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Gobind Besra Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt

Gunjiya Munda Vs M/S Bharat Cooking Coal Limited through Its C M D

Umesh Prasad Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary

MD Manzoor Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand