NAMITA PRAMANIK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent State.

(2.) The petitioner was selected for being appointed as Sahayika in Anganbari Center, Boram, pursuant to an Aam Sabha of the village held on 9.2.2013. The selection of the petitioner was also recommended for approval by the competent authority. The selection of the petitioner was, however, not confirmed, in spite of representations given by the petitioner.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State, in which, it is stated that by letter dated 17.12.2013 as contained in Annexure-C to the counter affidavit, the Child Development Project Officer, Patamda, District East Singhbhum, recommended for holding the Aam Sabha afresh, upon the request of the villagers, and on that basis, by the order has been issued by the District Welfare Officer, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, as contained in Memo No. 591 dated 15.4.2015, whereby the selection of the petitioner and other persons as Sevika and Sahayika were canceled. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-G to the counter affidavit. An enquiry report submitted by the Block Development Officer, Boram, through his letter dated 8.5.2015, has also been brought on record as Annexure-F to the counter affidavit, which shows that the selection of the petitioner was made after following all the procedures and there was no illegality in her selection as as Sahayika in Anganbari Center, Boram.