MIRA MARANDI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Selection of Aangan Bari Sevika for any centre is undertaken in terms of guidelines provided under circular dated 02.06.2006 bearing no. 505 issued by the Department of Social Welfare Women and Child Development, Government of Jharkhand. The Aam Sabha on the instant occasion considered the case of four applicants including the petitioner and the private respondent. Ultimately it selected the private respondent as per the minutes of Aam sabha dated 05.09.2012 for the centre Badi Kalyani, Block- Godda Gramin, DistrictGodda. Petitioner was earlier appointed as Sahayika and had served for certain period, but no preference was given to her by the Aam Sabha. She also claims to have worked as Sevika in adhoc capacity due to post being vacant for a number of years. The circular of 02.06.2006 prescribes under Clause-7 that educational qualification for being selected as sevika is matric pass, which is relaxable to matric fail in case of SC and ST candidates. It, however, also provides therein that amongst eligible candidates in the concerned category, persons having higher qualification would be preferred; a candidate for being selected should be a resident of the beneficiary area of Aagan Bari Centre. Selection is also to be made from amongst the beneficiaries of majority population of the said centre. Petitioner and the private respondents, both belong to the beneficiary population but the private respondents has secured 55%. Marks, compared to the petitioner, who secured 54 % in the Intermediate. This led the Aam Sabha to recommend her selection. Petitioner has got more marks in matriculation than the private respondent, she alleges that selection has been made contrary to the provisions of Clause-7 of the circular dated 02.06.2006 which lays down the minimum educational qualification required as matriculation only. Therefore, a challenge has been made to the appointment of the respondent no. 5 as Sevika vide Annexure-4 dated 05.09.2012 by the respondent no. 4 for the Centre Badi Kalyani, Block- Godda Gramin, District- Godda and also decision of Aam Sabha contained at Annexure-3.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has contested the case on the strength of the averments made in the counter affidavit and relying upon the aforesaid fact culled out from their affidavit. It is their case that both the candidates had produced relevant certificates. Selection was made by the Aam Sabha on conscious exercise of their choice in favour of the private respondent as she was having more marks in intermediate. Respondent also stated that since no appointment letter was issued for the post of Sevika to the petitioner, she cannot claim to have discharged her duties as Sevika for the said centre, though admittedly, she had worked as Sahayika for the said centre. However, according to the respondents, no preference is accorded to a candidate, who has been working as Sahayika, in matters of appointment as Sevika under the circular in vogue. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the selection process and this Court should not interfere in the same.