RAM DULARI SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing appointment made in favour of respondent No 4 and further for direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Sevika in pursuance to decision taken by Gram Sabha in its proceeding dated 07.02.2007.

(2.) Heard Mr. Mahesh Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, learned Sr. S.C. I for the respondents-State.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for appointment on the post of Anganbari Sevika and Anganbari Sahaika, Aam Sabha was held, in which, the petitioner along with other candidates participated and finally the name of the petitioner was recommended for selection by the Aam Sabha. but the Child Development Project Officer, Nirsa made a self-made ground that since the petitioner is daughter of the village in question she is not entitled to be appointed and made appointment of respondent No. 4 stating that she is daughter-in-law of that village. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is totally erroneous finding arrived at by the C.D.P.O., Nirsa. As a matter of fact, the petitioner is not the daughter of that village rather she is daughter-inlaw of that village which finds support from the fact that her husband-Hridaya Narayan Sinha @ Hridaya Narayan Prasad is a resident of Salika Mahavir Sthan and is working as a 4th Grade Mazdoor at Mechanical Bharat Engineering Company and further his name also finds place in the Voter List of that place. Hence, the ground taken by the C.D.P.O, Nirsa is not at all tenable. It has further been submitted that the petitioner also belongs to majority caste of that area. i.e.. Yadavas and she belongs to that caste as such the Gram Sabha had rightly recommended her name. It has further been submitted that being aggrieved by the finding given by C.D.P.O, Nirsa, the petitioner submitted representation before the authorities concerned, but, it did not evoke any response. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that C.D.P.O ignoring the recommendation made by Gram Sabha appointed respondent No. 4, on the totally false and flimsy ground, as such the decision given by C.D.P.O, Nirsa is fit to be quashed and set aside and consequent thereupon, the petitioner being the eligible candidate as recommended by the Gram Sabha is entitled to be appointed on the post in question.