RUKSANA KHATOON Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.4.2011 whereby the petitioner's selection as Sevika of Anganbari Centre at Durjanadih, Dhanwar has been cancelled.

(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner was duly selected as Sevika of the said Anganbari Centre on the basis of the recommendation of the Aam Sabha dated 24.8.09. The petitioner was working since then as such till 20.4.2011. Suddenly she received the impugned order cancelling her appointment on the allegation that the petitioner was irregularly appointed. Earlier by notice dated 16.3.2011, she was asked to appear with her original documents regarding her educational qualification, caste and residence. She complied with the same. She had appeared and produced all the certificates which were found in order. But in spite of the same, the impugned order dated 20.4.2011 has been issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Giridih whereby her said selection has been arbitrarily and illegally cancelled.

(3.) The alleged notice dated 16.3.2011 is Annexure -2. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the petitioner was asked to produce her certificates regarding education, caste and residence in original. It has been mentioned in the said notice that one Md. Kalimuddin and others had complained that the petitioner's selection was wrongly made. However, there is nothing in the notice showing any just reason for alleging her appointment as illegal. There is vague statement that her appointment was wrongly made. By the said notice she was merely directed to produce her certificates. She was not asked to explain against any allegation. The impugned notice (Annexure -2), thus, does not conform the requirement of the principles of natural justice and the same is not sufficient to establish compliance of the same. Even in the impugned order, it has not been stated that any such reason was informed to the petitioner and she was given an opportunity to explain the same. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that one Fazilat Khatoon, who had higher qualification, was also present, but she was not considered for appointment. The petitioner has brought on record the resolution of the Aam Sabha dated 24.8.09 in which she was selected by the said Sabha. From the same, it is clear that in the Gram Sabha only the application of the petitioner was received. There was no other application for consideration. In view thereof, I find no basis for the allegation made in the impugned order that Fazilat Khatoon was also one of the candidates available for consideration of her appointment on the said post on 24.8.09. I, therefore, find no valid ground in support of the impugned order dated 20.4.2011. The impugned order is also unsustainable for non -compliance of the principles of natural justice. In view of the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order dated 20.4.2011 is quashed. This writ petition is allowed.