NIRMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned decision dated 11.05.2010, vide Annexure-4, and the impugned order dated 11.05.2010 (Annexure- 4 and 4/A) whereby the respondent no.5 has been appointed as Sevika for Thekhi Centre.

(2.) The brief facts, as has been disclosed in the writ application is that in pursuance to notice issued for appointment of Sevika and Sahayika in Kummi-Khurd Thekhi Centre, the petitioner along with others applied for the post of Sevika. It has been averred in the writ application that a meeting of Aam Sabha was held on 03.02010, in which decision has been taken for appointment of the petitioner as Sevika and the respondent no.5 has been appointed as Sahayika, as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In pursuance to the Aam Sabha, provisional appointment order was issued as evident from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It has been contended in the writ application that without cancellation of the selection again another Aam Sabha was held on 11.05.2010 and the decision was taken for appointment of respondent no.5 as Sevika in place of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, to accommodate the respondent no.5 in place of the petitioner because of some extraneous consideration, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent nos.2 and 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned action of the respondents, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievance.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned decision vide Annexure-4 and 4/A to the writ petition is illegal and without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been selected by the Aam Sabha and provisional appointment order was issued as Sevika, but without any rhyme and reason again another Aam Sabha was held, whereby respondent no.5 was selected and appointed as Sevika, therefore, the action of the respondents amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.