Allowed

Renu Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Dec 2012CWJC/14594/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the appointment of a lower-qualified Angan Bari Sevika. The Court set aside the selection made by a minority candidate and directed confirmation of the petitioner who belonged to the dominant community and had higher academic qualifications.

What did the court decide?

Recovery of the selection of the respondent and confirmation of the petitioner as Angan Bari Sevika with permanent status.

Renu Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 14594 of 2004

¶3

====================================================== Renu Kumari, wife of Jamendra Kumar Singh, resident of village – Bara, Post Office – Takeya Karpi, Police Station – Khijar Sarai, District - Gaya

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 The Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4 The District Magistrate, Gaya 5 The Deputy Development Commissioner, Gaya 6 The District Programme Welfare Officer, Gaya 7 The Children Development Project Officer, Khijar Sarai Block, District – Gaya 8 Renu Devi, wife of Awadhesh Pandey @ Munna Pandey, resident of village – Bara, Post Office – Takeya Karpi, Police Station – Khijar Sarai, District - Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s Arvind Kumar Singh & Mukuljee, Advocates For the S t a t e : Mr Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 10 For Respondent No 8 : Mr Praveen Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

¶5

ORAL ORDER

¶6

3 11-12-2012 This writ petition was filed in the year, 2004 challenging the selection of Angan Bari Sevika as made in the year, 2002. The writ petition was originally allowed and the appointment of respondent No 8 was set aside. Respondent No 8 and the State applied for review. Both the review applications were rejected. Respondent No 8 then filed a Letters Patent Appeal pleading that the order passéd in the writ proceedings had been

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.14594 of 2004 (3) dt.11-12-2012

¶8

¶9

passed ex parte and without notice to her. On this ground alone, the Letters Patent Appeal was allowed and the judgment of this Court in this writ petition was set aside. Respondent No 8 was directed to appear in the writ proceedings as well by the Letters Patent Court which she undertook. It is under these circumstances this writ petition has been listed before this Court for hearing afresh.

¶10

Respondent No 8 and State are present. Parties have been heard. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner is that though she was a Matriculate in first division, respondent No 8, who was a Matriculate in second division, has been chosen and appointed. The proceeding of the Aam Sabha in which such selection was made is Annexure 9 (typed copy), Annexure 10 (Photostat copy) and Annexure A/1 to the counter affidavit of the State.

¶12

Petitioner had come to this Court earlier and this Court remanded the matter to be heard and decided by the Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC). The order of the DDC is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she came from the dominant community of the village and she was a first divisioner Matriculate, she was

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.14594 of 2004 (3) dt.11-12-2012

¶14

¶15

denied appointment whereas respondent No 8, who was a Brahmin and whose community was in minority in the village and she was a second divisioner Matriculate, she had been selected. The selection is wrong. When the matter, upon remand by this Court, was taken up by the DDC, whose order is Annexure 1 to the writ petition, fresh grounds were taken by the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) which grounds are not found in the proceedings of the Aam Sabha. The grounds now taken were that

¶16

petitioner had passed her Matriculation examination in supplementary whereas respondent No 8 had passed the Matriculation examination in the main examination itself. The second ground taken was that in the Aam Sabha, petitioner was asked to write a small passage in her own handwriting which she could not. It is on these two grounds that the DDC refused to interfere with the appointment as made.

¶17

It may be noted here that pursuant to the first order passed in the writ petition allowing the writ petition, petitioner had joined and it is not in dispute that she has been working as an Angan Bari Sevika for over seven years now.

¶18

Having considered the matter, in my view, the writ petition must succeed. Firstly, coming to the appellate order (Annexure 1), it is well settled that public order, publicly made,

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.14594 of 2004 (3) dt.11-12-2012

¶20

¶21

cannot be supplemented by reasons not found in the order. This position has been set at rest by the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Versus The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 851. Both the reasons given in the appellate order to justify non-selection of petitioner are nowhere mentioned much less considered in the proceedings of the Aam Sabha. Thus, the said order, as contained in Annexure 1, cannot be sustained.

¶22

Now coming to the selection itself. Neither the State nor respondent No 8 contests the position that petitioner is a first divisioner Matriculate whereas respondent No 8 is a second divisioner Matriculate. If that be the position then, in my view, that should have settled the selection, other considerations being the same. I am not on the issue whether the proceedings show petitioner to be a non-Matriculate because the proceedings do not note that being a non-Matriculate, she was either disqualified or was not being considered above respondent No 8.

¶23

The other reason why this Court feels that petitioner has been wrongly deprived of the selection is as would be seen from the proceedings of the Aam Sabha itself. It notes that the dominant community in the village is Rajput to which petitioner belongs. The purpose of Angan Bari Sevika is to get

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.14594 of 2004 (3) dt.11-12-2012

¶25

¶26

entry into houses of villagers and tend to the needs of the ladies and others in the house. Even the Government circular issued sometime later clearly specifies that preference should be given to the dominant community because of their acceptability in their houses. Though these facts are noted in the proceedings of the Aam Sabha but it is only a formality. No weightage was given to the same.

¶27

Thus, in my view, clearly petitioner was

¶28

wrongly deprived of her selection. She belonged to the dominant community and she was better qualified than respondent No 8. Thus, the selection of respondent No 8 is found to be not in order and is set aside. Instead it is directed that petitioner be confirmed as the Angan Bari Sevika, there being no other candidate for consideration. In fact, the third candidate is not even Middle pass.

¶29

That being so, as petitioner is already working as Angan Bari Sevika, as noticed above, she would continue to do so being treated as a permanent appointee.

¶30

The writ application is, thus, allowed.

¶31

M.E.H. /-

¶32

(Navaniti Prasad Singh)

Renu Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renu Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siya Manjhi and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Nassib Marandi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sri Arbind Kumar Vs the State of Bihar

Govind Jha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Raju Kumar Vidyarthi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.