ANJUM ARA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Anjum Ara and 8th respondent Goolsitara Khatoon were candidates for recruitment to the post of Anganwari Sevika pursuant to the advertisement issued on 18/10/2012. The appellant has secured 80.60, whereas 8th respondent has secured 48.60. The appellant was appointed to the post of Anganwari Sevika on 2/7/2013. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of appointment issued in favour of the appellant Anjum Ara, 8th respondent Goolsitara Khatoon submitted representation before the District Programme Officer to cancel the order of appointment issued in favour of the appellant and to issue order of appointment in favour of 8th respondent and it was rejected.

(2.) In the result, 8th respondent preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority allowed the 8th respondent's appeal while setting aside the order of appointment issued in favour of the appellant on 30/7/2015. Thus, appellant feeling aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority dtd. 30/7/2015 invoked remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution in filing C.W.J.C. No. 17585 of 2015. The learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's C.W.J.C. No. 17585 of 2015 on 23/8/2016, while affirming the order of the Appellant Authority's order, hence the present L.P.A by the appellant.

(3.) The appellant counsel vehemently contended that both the Appellate Authority and the learned Single Judge have committed error in not noticing the case on merit. It is further submitted that no doubt, appellant's father was a Panchayat Teacher and he was drawing a sum of Rs.6000.00 per month and the same would not be a hurdle for the reasons that this Court has set aside the amended guideline 4.9 in C.W.J.C. No. 13210 of 2014. Such imposition of clause is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Further, Appellate Authority as well as learned Single Judge have not appreciated the fact that the appellant had participated before Aam Sabha.