TARANNUM NISHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner in this writ application, has prayed for quashing the order of appointment of the respondent no. 9 on the post of Aanganwari Sevika as contained in Memo No. 122 dated 5.4.2007 (Annexure-3) and has made a further prayer for directing the concerned authorities of the respondents to hold a fresh general meeting of the villagers for the selection and appointment of the Aanganwari Sevika of Pirutola Centre within P.S. Pithoria, district Ranchi.

(3.) From the admitted facts, it appears that at the meeting of the Aam Sabha held on 10.12.2006, the petitioner as well as the respondent no. 9 had submitted their respective candidature for appointment to the post of Aanganwari Sevika. While the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she was not a resident of the same village, candidature of the respondent no. 9 was approved and she was appointed to the post of Aanganwari Sevika. The petitioner thereafter, obtained a certificate from the Circle Officer in support of her claim that she being the daughter-in-law, is a resident of the village and on the basis of such support, she filed her objection before the Deputy Commissioner contending that the rejection of her candidature was illegal. On receipt of the petitioner's complaint / objection, the Deputy Commissioner directed the Anchal Adhikari to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. The Anchal Adhikari conducted inquiry on a pre-notified date, in presence of the petitioner as also the respondent no. 9 and also in presence of the Gram Pradhan and other elders of the village. The findings of the Anchal Adhikari / Inquiry Officer, as contained in his report (Annexure-5), is that though, second meeting of the Aam Sabha was held on 26.12.2006, but no notice was given to the petitioner to appear at the Aam Sabha. Finding has also been recorded to the effect that the petitioner possesses higher educational qualification than the respondent no. 9. On these findings, the Inquiry Officer has made his observations to suggest that the rejection of the petitioner's candidature was wrong. Taking advantage of the aforesaid observation made by the Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report, and aggrieved by the rejection of her candidature, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.