RENU JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly for the reason that though the petitioner was selected for the post of Lady Supervisor in the Welfare Department of the State of Jharkhand and though she was ordered to joint the post vide letter dated 26 April, 2008 (Annexure 4 to the memo of petition), she was not allowed to join the post and, therefore, immediately, this writ petition has been preferred on 12 May, 2008 i.e. just within couple of days. Neither any reason nor any letter nor any communication was received by the petitioner from the respondents that why the petitioner, after her selection though advertisement, was not allowed to joint the post.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance of a public advertisement dated 13 November, 2007, the petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor. The respondents conducted examination on 27 January, 2008 and the petitioner appeared successfully in the said examination and in the merit list, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1. These are the admitted facts, even as per the respondents. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26 April, 2008, the petitioner was directed to join the post of Lady Supervisor, but, the concerned Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, did not allow the joining of the present petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that now for the first time in the counter affidavit vide Annexure A, the respondents are coming with a plea that the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi, on 5 May, 2008. No opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before canceling the appointment of the present petitioner. This decision is arbitrary, unilateral and violative of the principles of natural justice. The reason, given in the said order dated 5 May, 2008 is absolutely whimsical and de -hors of law. Had an opportunity of being heard been given to the petitioner, it would have been pointed out by the petitioner to the said officer of the Government that the reason, which the respondents are alleging against the petitioner for cancellation of her appointment, is no reason in the eyes of law. Previous appointment of the present petitioner on some other post was within eighteen years and, therefore, a fresh new and independent selection of the present petitioner for the post of Lady Supervisor has been cancelled. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the post of Lady Supervisor is not a promotion of the petitioner from the post of Anganbari Sevika, but, on the basis of a separate and independent advertisement dated 13 November, 2007 (Annexure 3 to the memo of petition), a public examination was conducted on 27 January, 2008 and the petitioner has proved her merits and has been placed at serial No. 1 of the merit list. Thus, the advertisement, examination, selection and appointment for the post of Lady Supervisor has no cogent connection with the appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika and, therefore, the alleged reason, given in the impugned order dated 5 May, 2008 that initially when the petitioner was appointed on some other post, she was below 18 years of age and, therefore, a fresh new and independent selection of the petitioner is hereby cancelled, is absolutely no reason in the eyes of law and, therefore, also there is a thoroughly non -application of mind by the respondents and, hence, the said order deserves to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be directed to be appointed as Lady Supervisor forthwith.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respondent -State and other officers, who has submitted that it is true that the petitioner was selection on the post of Lady Supervisor, in pursuance of an advertisement dated 13 November, 2007 and she was directed to joint the post vide letter dated 26 April, 2008, but, it has been brought to the notice of the respondents that when the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika, in past, she was below eighteen years of age and, therefore, her selection and appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor has been cancelled vide order dated 5 May, 2008 (Annexure A to the counter affidavit).