EASTER RANI BHENGRA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to consider her appointment for the post of Aganbari Sevika in village Idri pursuant to the order dated 08.12.2014 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5702 of 2005. Further prayer has been made for cancellation of appointment of respondent No.5 and for direction upon the respondents to provide the benefits of appointment as per merit and guidelines.

(2.) The case of the petitioner lies in narrow compass. The petitioner is a matriculate and belongs to Scheduled Tribes. An aamsabha was conducted on 20.12001 for appointment to the post of Aaganbari Sevika, the petitioner was one of the candidate for the said post with Smt. Sarita Devi, but she was not selected and said Smt. Sarita Devi was selected for the said post. Aggrieved by the selection of said Smt. Sarita Devi, the petitioner moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 1685 of 2005, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 104.2005. In compliance of the said order, the respondents authorities cancelled the appointment of Sarita Devi. Pursuant thereto, Sarita Devi also moved before this Hon'ble Court by filing writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 5702 of 2015, wherein the present petitioner was respondent No. 9 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 08.12014 with a direction to respondent No.2 to pass speaking and reasoned order.

(3.) It is specific case of the petitioner that in compliance of the said order, the respondent No.3 directed the petitioner and Sarita Devi to appear on 28.04.2015 and 12.05.2015 for hearing. Thereafter, the present petitioner appeared before the respondents on both the occasions with all relevant documents and testimonials and pleaded her case. After sufficient lapse of time, when no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner invoked provisions of RTI Act from where he could gathered the information that her candidature was not considered and respondent No. 4 has been selected in a matter which was between petitioner and Sarita Devi. The aforesaid selection is illegal as other person has been appointed, who was not a party in the earlier proceeding. As the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondents, she has rushed before this Court, by way of filing instant writ petition.