DHENA TUDU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to appoint her to the post of Atirikt Anganwari Sewika Sah Poshan Paramarshi (Poshan Sakhi) for the Anganwari Centra Bairiyabad, Dumka by cancelling the appointment of respondent No. 6, who has been appointed dehors the rule.

(2.) The respondents-State vide Memo No. 2126 dated 21.09.2015 issued a guideline for selection of Atirikt Anganwari Sewika (Poshan Sakhi). As per the said guideline, minimum qualification for the said post is matric and marks have been given for the head of educational qualification, residence, Technical qualification and for matriculation, 10 marks has been allotted, likewise for intermediate, 15 marks have been allotted. As per the said guideline, the respondent published recruitment Notice in the month of April, 2016 for appointment to the post of Atririkt Anganwari Sewika (Poshan Sakhi) for the Anganwari Centre Bairiyabad, Dumka, under the Chairmanship of CDPO, Maslia Gram Sabha. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and two other candidates applied for the said post. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she has passed Intermediate Examination from JAC in the year, 2016 with 55.80 per cent and also have two years experience. Whereas, the respondent No. 6 has passed intermediate with 40.60 percent in the year, 201 Though the certificates were very much before the respondents but they illegally and arbitrary did not consider the certificates of the petitioner and have issued appointment letter to the respondent No. 6 though she has obtained less marks than the petitioner.

(3.) Having came to know about marks obtained by the respondent No. 6, the petitioner filed representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Dumka for consideration of her case in view of the guideline issued by the State Government for appointment to the post of Atirikt Anganwari Sevika (Poshan Sakhi) as she has obtained more marks than the respondent No. 6. As the case of the petitioner was not considered neither any appointment letter was issued nor the appointment of respondent No. 6 was cancelled, the petitioner has rushed to this Court, by filing of this writ petition.