SUSHMITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.08.2011 passed by respondent No. 2 (Deputy Commissioner. Giridih) in Case No. 11 of 2011, whereby decision taken by respondent No. 3, approving selection of petitioner for appointment on the post of Aanganwadi Sevika of Uttimtand Aanganwadi Centre has been set aside and the CDPO (respondent No. 4) was directed to convene a fresh Aam Sabha for selection and appointment of Aanganwadi Sevika.

(2.) It is stated that petitioner was appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Sevika of Uttimtand Aanganwadi Centre with the approval of Respondent No. 3, vide Order contained in Annexure 3. It is further stated that one Sangita Kumari (Respondent No. 5) filed writ application in this Court, challenging the appointment of petitioner, which was disposed of by order contained in Annexure 6. Annexure 6 reveals that this Court refused to entertain aforesaid writ application of Sangita Kumari, because an enquiry is pending before the Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No. 2). It then appears that Deputy Commissioner, after making enquiry, has come to the conclusion that selection of petitioner made without following the procedure, therefore, approval given by DDC is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, by impugned order dated 19.08.2011 (Annexure 7) decision of DDC, giving approval on the selection of petitioner, has been set aside and Respondent No. 4 was directed to convene a fresh Aam Sabha for selection of Aanganwadi Sevika.

(3.) It is submitted by Sri Pandey Niraj Rai, learned counsel for petitioner that DC have no power to cancel appointment on the ground that same was made in violation of procedure laid down in the Circular issued by the State Government (Annexure 1). It is submitted that in Clause 17 of Annexure 1, it is mentioned that if an Aanganwadi Sevika appointed in violation of Rule, then the Director, Social Welfare has power to cancel such appointment. It is further submitted that against the order of Director, Social Welfare, appeal will lie before the Departmental Secretary. It is submitted that from perusal of impugned order, it is clear that Respondent No. 2 set aside the decision of Respondent No. 3 approving petitioner's selection, because due procedure has not been followed. According to Sri Rai. Respondent No. 2 has no power to pass aforesaid order in view of Clause 17 of Annexure 1.