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 26th 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 12th 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 13th November, 2007, the Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor. The Respondents conducted examination on 27th 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 26th 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 5th 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 volatile of the principles of natural justice. The reason, given in the said order dated 5th May, 2008 is absolutely whimsical and dehors 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 13th November, 2007 (annexure 3 to the memo of petition), a public examination was conducted on 27th 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 5th 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.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon a decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Corporation and Ors. v. Rajednra Bhimrao Mandve and Ors. as, 2002 1 JCR 301, and has submitted that after the selection process is over, no selection can be cancelled of any candidate, by adding any condition of a candidature.