Writ petition challenging the selection of a respondent as an Anganbari Sevika. The court held that resignation bars re-appointment, not participation in fresh selection for different centers, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16915 of 2019
======================================================
Ifat Fatima W/o Md. Saquib Anwar R/o Village- Bangra, P.S.- Amour, District- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md. Raisul Haque ( SC-10 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
An order dated 22.01.2019 of the District Magistrate,
Purnea as an appellate authority under the guidelines of 2016 issued for selection of Anganbari Sevika/Sahaiyaka under
Patna High Court CWJC No.16915 of 2019(2) dt.14-10-2019 2/5
Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), passed in Service Appeal Case No. 49 of 2018 is under challenge. The matter relates to Anganbari Centre in Ward No. 5 of Bangra Mahdipur, Block-Amour, in the District of Purnea. Respondent No.12 was selected for the post. Her selection was, however, challenged before the District Programme Officer, Purnea on the ground that the certificates which she had submitted were forged. The main attack was in respect of the transfer certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School where respondent No.12 had studied up to 8th standard. The said transfer certificate contained the date of birth of respondent No.12 as 25.03.1983. It appears from the order of the District Programme Officer, Purnea that a report was sought from the concerned School on the basis of which he came to a conclusion that the said transfer certificate was not genuine. Accordingly, he had set aside the selection of respondent No.12 and had directed the Child Development Project Officer, Amour to proceed for selection/appointment in accordance with Clause 11 of the 2016 guidelines. Respondent No.12, thereafter challenged the order of the District Programme Officer by filing appeal No. 49 of 2018, which has been disposed of by the District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 22.01.2019. The District Magistrate
Patna High Court CWJC No.16915 of 2019(2) dt.14-10-2019 3/5
noted the fact that the date of birth of respondent No.12 was mentioned as 25.03.1983 in the transfer certificate. He was of the view that if there was any dispute in respect of date of birth of respondent No.12, the same could have been ascertained and determined on the basis of her matriculation certificate. He was of the view that the decision of the District Programme Officer to hold the transfer certificate not genuine on the basis of a report of the Headmaster of the School was not proper, in view of his subsequent report submitted on 27.02.2019. Accordingly, the District Magistrate, Purnea set aside the order of the District Programme Officer and allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.12.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16915 of 2019(2) dt.14-10-2019 4/5
not have any right to be appointed again. He has, however, not raised any dispute in respect of date of birth of respondent No.12. He has also submitted that respondent No.12 had submitted her resignation to the lady Supervisor whereas she was required to submit her resignation before the Child Development Project Officer.
“ 14. R;kx&i= & vk¡xuckM+h lsfodk@lgkf;dk cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh dks ,d ekg dh iwoZ lwpuk ij vius in ls fyf[kr R;kxi= ns ldrh gS ftls cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk izkfIr frfFk ds ,d lIrkg ds ckn izHkkoh ekuk tk;sxkA blds vfrfjDr R;kxi= nsus okys vk¡xuckM+h lsfodk@lgkf;dk dks iqu% cgkyh dk dksbZ vf/kdkj izkIr ugha gksxkA”
who tenders resignation shall have no right to be appointed again, cannot be given a meaning that an Anganbari Sevika/Sahaiyaka , who tenders her resignation cannot participate in a fresh process of selection as such, even for different centers. The said provision can be interpreted to mean that after having submitted resignation, an Anganbari Sevika/Sahaiyka cannot claim her re-appointment in the same Centre against the same post.
Patna High Court CWJC No.16915 of 2019(2) dt.14-10-2019 5/5
ground that she had tendered resignation before a person not competent to accept her resignation. The said aspect cannot be gone into in the present proceeding, while considering the correctness of the decision of the appellate authority.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)
arun/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Clause 14 of the 2016 ICDS guidelines bars a candidate who tendered resignation from participating in a fresh selection process.
Whether the High Court can examine the procedural issue regarding the competency of the person who accepted the resignation in this writ proceeding.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ifat Fatima W/o Md. Saquib Anwar
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare
Minouti Devi W/o Pradip Kumar Sah
Chakradhari Sharan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
