AMOD BALA MANDAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties. There is a delay of 53 days in filing the appeal and the appellant has filed LA. No. 1441 of 2003 at flag 'L ' to condone the said delay. We are satisfied that proper explanation for the said delay has been furnished. So the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

(2.) ON 24.11.1984, the appellant was selected as Anganbari Sevika by the village Aam Sabha to run the Integrated Child Development Services Centre at village Jamdoha -Barodih, under Ichagarh Child Development Project. In lieu of the social services rendered by her, she was getting honorarium. Subsequently, on 1.10.1996, in the general meeting of the villagers and the Selection Committee at Bandu Panchayat Bhawan, it was unanimously resolved that the appellant was found completely unfit as Anganbari Sevika because her conduct was found unsatisfactory and thereupon recommendation was made for her termination as Anganbari Sevika, which was approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner, West Singhbhum,, after following due process of law. The appellant was asked to submit her explanation regarding the alleged irregularities committed by her in free distribution of nutrias food to the children and her feeling of untouchability. She was found unwilling to run the centre in the sanctioned village Jamdoha. The explanation submitted by her was not found satisfactory. The District Programme Officer, accordingly, communicated approval of the Deputy Development Commissioner canceling her name from the select list of Anganbari Sevika. It is relevant to state that earlier circular of the Welfare Department dated 6.12.1995 (Annexure 6) was superseded by the subsequent circular issued by the said department on 13.6.1998, whereby in place of the Selection Committee, the Child Development Project Officer -cum -Deputy Development Commissioner was authorised to delist the Anganbari Sevika from the select list and against such order, if aggrieved the Anganbari Sevika concerned, was provided right to go in appeal before the Collector of the District. In stead of filing the appeal the appellant preferred WP (S) No. 4612 of 2001 in this Court, which was heard and dismissed by the learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 16.4.2003 with the following observation :