SUNITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer is to set aside the order, dated 24.8.2007 contained in Annexure 7 by which the petitioner has been removed from the post of Aangan Bari Sevika in lieu of the selection made on 8.3.2007. The second question which arises in this case is whether the eligibility criteria laid down in the guide lines promulgated by the Welfare Department on 3.10.2008 with respect to the qualification and eligibility contained in clause 3 (Anga) is unjust, unfair and arbitrary and hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In fact this writ petition was admitted mainly to decide this issue.

(2.) Certain facts are admitted by all the parties before this court. An Aam Sabha was held on 8.3.2007 for the purpose of selecting Aangan Bari Sevika of village Rasalpur Mahugain under wazirganj block within the district of Gaya. The petitioner was at serial no.1 whereas respondent no.7 was at serial no.2 in the merit list. Prior to the selection of the petitioner a report was called for from the Child Development Project Officer (C. D. P. O.) as well as from the Mukhiya of the village. The report indicates that the petitioner?s father-in-law was working in the Gaya Municipal Corporation as a Lower Division Clerk and was living at Gaya. The report also indicates that there was a partition in the family and the petitioner and her husband lived separately in the village. The report of the Mukhiya was submitted to the C. D. P. O. whereas the C. D. P. O. submitted his report to the Subdivisional Officer Sadar, Gaya. Thereafter, the petitioner was sent for training and was selected vide Annexure 4, dated 13.7.2007 and was appointed as Aangan Bari Sevika.

(3.) After the selection of the petitioner a complaint was filed against her appointment. The District Magistrate issued letter no.1761, dated 20.8.2007 by which he had fixed the date of hearing of the complaint against the selected candidates of the different villagers in which the candidates along with the C. D. P. O. were to be present. The date fixed for hearing the complaint of Fatehpur, Wazirganj and Tenkuppa blocks was 23.8.2007. As it happened the District Magistrate issued another notice preponding the date of hearing to 22.8.2007 at 9 AM at his office at Gaya. Notices were issued to the C. D. P. O. and he was asked to inform the petitioner regarding the change of date for hearing the complaint. It is admitted that the petitioner could get the notice of the said date of hearing only in the evening of 22.8.2007 and as such he was obviously not present in the office of the District Magistrate at 9 AM on 22.8.2007. It is also a matter of record that the C. D. P. O. was not present himself on 22.8.2007 because of late receipt of the notice regarding the change of date. These facts are also reflected in the order terminating the petitioner, dated 28.10.2007.