ANITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 6 was earlier noticed and the notices were sent by registered post as well as by personal service. It appears from vide order dated 28.4.2010, that notices upon the respondent no. 6 has been deemed to have been served. However, respondent no. 6 has not entered appearance through his counsel to contest his case.

(2.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 5.6.2007 (Annexure-7) by which the respondent no. 6, Anita Devi has been appointed on the post of Sevika in place of the petitioner Anita Kumari, who was earlier appointed pursuant to the decision of the selection committee dated 21.8.2006 vide appointment letter of the same date. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent selection process held on 8.2.2007 by which respondent no. 6 was selected for being appointed as Sevika contrary to the Rules.

(3.) From the facts stated on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6, both belong to Backward Caste and in the selection committee meeting of the Aam Sabha held on 21.8.2006, the candidature of the respondent no. 6 and two other candidates alongwith the petitioner were also considered. The petitioner was recommended for being appointed on the post of Sevika, although, village comprised majority of Harijan, but no Harijan female candidates were available. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the guidelines issued by the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand contained in Memo No. 585 dated 2.6.2006 specifically paragraph-14 whereof and has submitted that the approval of such appointment is to be made by the Deputy Development Commissioner within a period of 15 days failing which the Child Development Project Officer is required to send the recommendation to the Director, Social Welfare Office, Government of Jharkhand for approval. It is further pointed out that without any rhyme or reason the appointment of the petitioner was not approved and second selection committee meeting was held without any notice to the petitioner and respondent no. 6 was recommended and being appointed vide Annexures-3 and 3/1. Thereafter, approval of the appointment of respondent no. 6 was granted by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh communicated through letter dated 5.6.2007 issued by the District Programme Officer, Hazaribagh to the Child Development Project Officer, Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh without any justification as the respondent no. 6 also belonged to the same backward caste and her candidature was also considered in the first selection process, but the petitioner was recommended and provisionally appointed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having qualification of Intermediate in Arts while respondent no. 6 is Matriculate, therefore, the impugned appointment is contrary to the Rules and is fit to be set aside.