RENU KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is true that the Aam Sabha chaired by the Mukhiya is the sole authority to select Anganbadi Sevika. It is also true that when the Aam Sabha chaired by the Mukhiya in the presence of the Child Development Project Officer has made a fair selection, no one can interfere with the same. The petitioner is a Matriculate and has passed the said examination in First Division. Respondent No. 8 is a Matriculate and has passed the said examination in the Second Division. The Rules made by the State for giving such appointments provide that a person better qualified should be preferred. Merely because the petitioner has obtained First Division and the Respondent No. 8 has obtained Second Division, it is not necessary that the petitioner should be selected. If the Respondent No. 8, despite having had passed Matriculation in Second Division, is more lovable, caring and appears to be more competent to handle tiny toddlers, the Aam Sabha can certainly appoint Respondent No. 8 in preference of the petitioner. The basic rules of law require the Aam Sabha, the Mukiya and the Child Development Project Officer to record the proceedings of the Aam Sabha so that it reflects a fair selection by them.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner is a Matriculate. In the minutes of the proceedings of the Aam Sabha it has been recorded that the petitioner is a non -matriculate. It was obligatory on the part of the Mukhiya as well as the Child Development Project Officer to record the minutes of the meeting of the Aam Sabha in a fair manner. They deliberately recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the Aam Sabha that the petitioner is a non -matriculate in order to throw her out from the array of selection inasmuch as Matriculation is the minimum that is required for being appointed as an Anganbadi Sevika. The petitioner made a representation against this fallacious selection. That was not replied to. The petitioner was thus forced to come to this Court. The Court directed the petitioner to make a representation afresh with a direction upon the appropriate authority to decide that representation in accordance with law. The petitioner made a representation, and to that, an order has been passed and therein it has been stated that the Aam Sabha is the supreme authority and accordingly whatever the Aam Sabha has done, that is sacrosanct. In addition to that, the Child Development Project Officer has added that the petitioner failed to write even 2 or 3 sentences correctly before the Aam Sabha, unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has not been recorded in the minutes of the proceedings of the Aam Sabha. Therefore, the Child Development Project Officer in the impugned order in order to get out from the fact that deliberately she and the Mukhiya had thrown the petitioner out of the array of selection by showing that she is ineligible for she is non -matriculate has tried to shield that misdeed by contending that the petitioner failed to write 2 or 3 sentences correctly.

(3.) THE State Vigilance Department is directed to initiate an appropriate proceedings against the Child Development Project Officer concerned and to take such steps as is required to be taken in the facts and circumstances against the Child Development Project Officer.