RINKI KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. Though the private respondent was validly served notice earlier but she has not appeared to contest the case. The writ petition is being heard and decided after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner was appointed on the basis of an Aam Sabha held on 14.5.2010 as Sahaika for Village Karni, Aangan Bari Center under Block and District -Chatra. The provisional appointment letter was issued on the same day, Annexure -2 by the Child Development Project Officer, Itkhori, Chatra. The Aam Sabha was attended by several villagers, minutes of the Aam Sabha is annexed as Annexure -1 to the writ petition. Petitioner was having higher qualification of Intermediate with 2nd Division and also she was within the age limit having born on 3.2.1989. Though some villagers proposed that another applicant namely Sunita Kumari, who is private respondent be selected but it is indicated in the minutes that the members of the Selection Committee opined that if rest of the applicants withdraw their applications only then the said applicant could be considered for selection. But no one volunteered to withdraw their application including the present petitioner and thereafter the Aam Sabha recommended the selection of the petitioner for the post of Sahaika. After issuance of the provisional appointment letter, petitioner was issued the selection letter bearing memo No. 160 dated 5.8.2010 by the C.D.P.O., Itkhori whereunder she was directed to report joining before the C.D.P.O. along with all her certificates. Petitioner, thereafter continued to discharge her duties as Sahaika for the said center. Initially she had approached this Court for payment of honorarium for the said post, however, during the pendency of the writ application she was terminated from service by the impugned order at Annexure -11, issued by the District Welfare Officer, Chatra bearing memo No. 190 dated 30.3.2012. The same has been challenged by way of interlocutory application, thereafter, which was allowed on 19.8.2013.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of termination is wholly bad in law on account of the following reasons: - -(i) that the same has been issued upon the directions of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra, which is not proper in the eye of law; (ii) by referring to letter dated 10.1.2011 (Annexure -7) of the Block Development Officer, Itkhori, it is submitted that a fresh Aam Sabha was suggested to be convened as the newly elected 'Mukhia' and certain villagers were in favour of selection of poor lady, Sunita Kumari, private respondent No. 8 for the post of Sahaika. Only thereafter the Aam Sabha was held to annul the petitioner's selection; (iii) petitioner was never given any opportunity or show cause notice before her appointment has been terminated by the impugned order. The private respondent has been selected by the Aam Sabha, subsequently convened and approved by the Deputy Commissioner, Chatra on 22.12.2011, as per Annexure -10. The said order is also under challenge in the amended writ petition. It is therefore, submitted that on only pure whims and fancies of newly elected 'Mukhia' and certain villagers without any justifiable reason and also without any observance of Principle of Natural Justice, the appointment of the petitioner has been terminated in a wholly arbitrary and illegal manner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -State by referring to different annexures of the counter affidavit submitted that selection of the petitioner was in violation of the circular dated 2.6.2006 of the Social Welfare Department under which such appointment/selection of Aangan Bari Sevika/Sahiaka is to be done. The said circular has been produced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Perusal of the same however does not indicate that in the selection process, the laid down guidelines for selection of Aangan Bari Sevika/Sahaika as contemplated under the said circular has been contravened. Petitioner, admittedly has been a candidate having higher qualification of Intermediate with 2nd Division and she was within the age limit prescribed. She belongs to the beneficiary area of the same village. Decision was taken by a duly constituted Aam Sabha on 14.5.2010. Therefore, simply because the -newly elected 'Mukhia' and certain villagers wanted the private respondent to be selected as Sahaika, several complaints/representation were made, whereupon the Respondent -State has chosen to refer the matter to the same Aam Sabha for taking a decision upon termination of petitioner's appointment and selection of new Sahaika. Such a course does not seem to be justified in the eye of law. If there were certain allegation against the petitioner, which were being inquired, no opportunity was ever given to her to rebut the same. However, on the face of the allegation as reflected in the complaints/representation, it appears that no contravention of the stipulated guidelines under the circular dated 2.6.2006 have been made out. The entire process by which the petitioner's appointment has been terminated appears to be vitiated in law as well as on facts.