TAJMINA KHATON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was selected as Sahyogini under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan by the Aam Sabha of Village- Arkosa, District- Lohardaga. The selection of the present petitioner and the Minutes of the said proceeding of Aam Sabha is at Annexure-2 to the memo of the petition. Looking to this Annexure-2 Minutes, it appears that there were three candidates under consideration and the petitioner was found suitable and, therefore, the petitioner was selected for the post of Sahyogini. For any reason, whatsoever, the respondent-State authorities have appointed one Smt. Vibha Tigga, who is respondent no. 6. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 6 has never even participated in the selection process, looking to Annexure-2. Moreover, it has been stated in paragraph 13 of the petition that respondent no. 6 is not residing in the same tola, where, the school is situated. It is further submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that no reasons have been assigned for not to appoint the petitioner, who is selected by the Aam Sabha of the concerned village, as per Annexure-2 and respondent no. 6 is appointed on the post of Sahyogini, therefore, the petitioner may be allowed to work as Sahyogini in place of respondent no. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent-State is seeking time to file counter affidavit.

(2.) Though respondent no. 6 is served, nobody appears on behalf of respondent no. 6.

(3.) Having heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Counsel for the respondent-State and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: