PRAMILA PANDIT @ PRAMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing order dated 14.02.2011 passed in Misc. Petition No. 10/08-09, whereby the appointment of the petitioner as Aaganbari Sevika for Barmasia (Pandit Tola) Centre was declared invalid and accordingly her appointment was cancelled.

(2.) The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that initially the petitioner was selected as Aganbari Sevika for Barmasia (Pandit Tola) Centre in the Aam Sabha held on 24.11.2006 and she was appointed as Aganbari Sevika for that Centre. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Godda cancelled the selection of Aganbari Sevika and Sahayika of the entire district and accordingly the appointment of the petitioner stood cancelled. Thereafter, the Deputy Commissioner-the respondent no. 4 deputed President and members for selection of Aaganbari Sevika and Sahayika for different Aaganbari Centres. It has been submitted that on 23.05.2007 Aam Sabha was held for the selection of Sevika/Sahayika for the Barmasia (Pandit Tola) Centre, where name of respondent no. 9 was recommended for selection for Sevika before respondent no. 4 and 7, but, it was not accepted by respondent no. 7 on the ground that the respondent no. 9 belongs to Government servant family, hence, the petitioner was appointed as Sevika for that Centre and she is working since 06.06.2007. Being aggrieved by the appointment of petitioner, the respondent no. 9 approached this Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 3269 of 2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.06.2008 giving liberty to the petitioner (respondent no. 9 herein) to file fresh representation before Deputy Commissioner, who shall pass reasoned order. Accordingly, respondent no. 9 filed Misc. Petition No. 10/08-09 before respondent No. 4, who after hearing the parties, vide order dated 14.02.2011 declared the appointment of the petitioner invalid and accordingly appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled, on the ground that on the date of Aam Sabha, the respondent no. 9 was having higher qualification than that of petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 4 has passed the impugned order dated 14.02.2011 without following the guidelines dated 02.06.2006 for appointment of Aaganbari Sevika, wherein at paragraph 7 (Ga), it is stated that Sevika/Sahayika should be amongst beneficiary and in paragraph 4 of the said guideline, it is further stated that persons belonging to below poverty lines comes under the zone of beneficiary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that petitioner comes under the definition of beneficiary as she belongs to 'Below Poverty Line ' Category whereas the respondent no. 9 does not come under the definition of beneficiary, hence, respondent no. 9 does not have mandatory eligibility criteria for appointment for Aaganbari Sevika, as is evident from BPL Ration Card.