NIRMALA BESRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner an Aanganwari Sevika, participated in the exercise for appointment of Lady Supervisor under the Department of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development, Government of Jharkhand under advertisement issued on 28.11.2007 (Annexure-3), The eligibility criteria for such Aanganwari Sevika laid down at clause 2 of the said advertisement was that those having qualification of Graduate were required to have at least 10 years of qualifying satisfactory service as Sevika and those having qualification of Matric were required to have 15 years of qualifying satisfactory service. As per clause 3 the age relaxation of 5 years was to be granted. Clause 8 prescribed the process of appointment. Clause 8(ii) laid down that for such appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor, the applicant-Aanganwari Sevika has to face written examination comprising two part i.e. General Knowledge and Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). Both the papers should have 100 marks each. Based upon such examination, on the recommendation of the selection committee constituted at the divisional level the Divisional Commissioner in turn was empowered to take decision in the matter of such appointment. In such circumstances, the petitioner after facing the written examination fetched 130 marks. Incidentally, four others Aanganwari Sevikas also fetched 130 marks. Amongst all those 5 persons whose names are enclosed in the chart indicated at para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 on 13.6.2011, four such candidates elder in age to the petitioner were appointed against the vacant posts. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached this Court for redressal of her grievances.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that such appointment was made without any Rules specifying the criteria or norms contained in the advertisement. The grant of appointment on the basis of seniority in age to such persons having same marks to the petitioner is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Respondents were allowed time to fife response as to what are the norms under which such course has been adopted. They were asked to disclose if there are any further vacancies available under the respondent-department for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor. The respondents in their reply to I.A. No. 800 of 2012 have disclosed that there are no further vacancies. They have also indicated that by the notification issued on 2.12.2011 issued under the relevant provisions of Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission Act of 2008 in para 5 thereof provision have been made to take care of such eventuality when more than one candidate have same marks. In that situation selection has to be made on the basis seniority in date of birth. It is however not in dispute that the said selection exercise took place in the year 2010 before coming into force of the said notification.