MANORAMA KUMARI @ DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the norms, one of the beneficiaries belonging to the scheduled caste needs to be appointed as Anganbari Sewika at Bhuli Block -A Centre, Bauri Hairjan Tola No.4, Anchal -Dhanbad, District -Dhanbad, but at that Centre, respondent no. 7 -Reena Sinha has been appointed as Anganbari Sewika, though she never belongs to scheduled caste community and even she is not the daughter -in -law of that village, still she has been appointed and as such appointment of respondent no. 7 -Reena Sinha as Anganbari Sewika in the said Centre is quite illegal, whereas this petitioner was competent to be appointed on that Centre as Anganbari Sewika and, therefore, the petitioner had made representation before the respondent no.3 -the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad, by raising her grievances but no decision has been taken in this respect.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , with the aforesaid direction/observation, this writ application is disposed of.