PUSHP MALA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner, in this writ application, has challenged the appointment of the Respondent No. 6 as Sevika of the Anganbari Centre in village-Gangpancho (Upper Tola) and being aggrieved with the rejection of her candidature, she has filed this writ application, praying for a direction upon the Respondents to cancel the appointment of the Respondent No. 6 and to appoint the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika in her place.

(3.) Amongst the several grounds raised by the petitioner, challenging the appointment of the Respondent No. 6, it is contended that the appointment of the Respondent No. 6 has not been made in accordance with the procedure laid down under the Scheme for appointment of the Anganbari Sevika in as much as, the Respondent No. 6 does not belong to a Below Poverty Line Family, nor is she a permanent resident of the village, in which the Angabari Centre is located. The petitioner claims that on the other hand she is not only a permanent resident of the village but she also belongs to a B.P.L. Family and moreover, she possesses a higher academic qualification than the Respondent No. 6. It is informed that earlier upon a complaint received against the appointment of the Respondent No. 6, her appointment was cancelled but surprisingly, she was again reinstated/continued to function as Sevika of the Anganbari Centre, despite the fact that several complaints under the joint signatures of the villagers were filed before the concerned authorities. Learned counsel adds further that the representation filed by the petitioner, raising her objections against the re-appointment of the Respondent No. 6 and against rejection of the petitioner's candidature has not been disposed of, as yet.