KUMARI RANJANA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petition, are that the petitioner being eligible for the post of Anganbari Sevika for Centre No.236 in Ward No.11 under Dhanav Mubarakpur Panchayat of the District Patna in the year 2012, submitted her application. After scrutiny, a merit list was prepared in which the petitioner was declared to be No.1 in the merit list as she had obtained 73.42 percentage of marks. It is the case of the petitioner that after preparation of the merit list an Aam Sabha was to be convened, however no Aam Sabha was held by the C.D.P.O., though Rule 6.9 speaks that after publication of the merit list, just after eight days, the final selection of Sevika has to be done. The respondent authorities with mala fide intention, to defeat the claim of the petitioner, did not do so and subsequently without notifying any date, selected the second candidate in the merit list. The Aam Sabha was held on 23/12/2013, without any information to the petitioner. When petitioner came to know about the fact that Aam Sabha was held on 23/12/2013, she immediately approached the appointing authority with an application, mentioning therein that she had not been given any information for the so called Aam Sabha, for issuing appointment letter and on the day the Aam Sabha was convened, she went for medical check up of her daughter. The respondent authorities did not consider the application of the petitioner and with mala fide intention appointed the private respondent no.7 herein, who was no.2 in the merit list. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the S.D.O., Barh, Patna for a direction upon the Child Development Project Officer, Barh, Patna for reconvening the meeting of the Aam Sabha and for appointing the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika, since the Aam Sabha was convened behind her back and ultimately the private respondent no.7, who was below in the merit list, was selected as an Anganbari Sevika. It is further case of the petitioner that the S.D.O., Barh, Patna directed the respondent no.5 to hold an enquiry into the matter and to inform within three days. Subsequently vide his Letter No.309, dtd. 1/2/2014 the S.D.O., Barh directed the C.D.P.O., Barh to inform him about the steps taken by the C.D.P.O., in terms of Rule 8 of the Anganbari Sevika Chayan Margdarshika. When no response was received from the S.D.O., Barh, then the petitioner was constrained to move before the District Magistrate, Patna by filing a representation, but the same was not taken care of.