THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. ( S) No. 3570 of 2008
Kiran Kumari ( Devi) … Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents
Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. Dilip Kumar Pd.
For the respondents : JC to GP 1.
07.05. 2009. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and leaned
counsel for the respondents.
Petitioner in this application has prayed fore issuance of
a direction to the respondent no. 5 to dispose of the petitioner’s
representation dated 17.6.2008 wherein she has raised a grievance that in
spite of her selection in the meeting held on 28.12.2007 for appointment as
Aangan Bari Sewika at Sirka Centre, Ramgarh, the respondents have not
given her letter of appointment nor have allowed her to join on the said
post. The petitioner claims to have filed representation before the Deputy
Commissioner (respondent no. 5) a copy of which has been annexed as
Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that after the
aforesaid Aam sabha/meeting, no meeting has ever been held for the
purpose of fresh selection for appointment of Aangan Bari Sewika, nor is
the selection of the petitioner being implemented by granting her
appointment and the representation filed by the petitioner has also not
been considered till date by the respondent no. 5 who is the competent
authority to take decision in the matter.
No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
respondents, but from the averments made in the writ petition and the
Annxures thereto, it appears prima facie that the selection of the petitioner
was made in December, 2007 for her appointment as Aangan Bari Sewika,
but she has not been given letter of appointment, nor has been allowed to
join on the post and no reason has been assigned as to why despite
selection, she has not been appointed.
2
Considering the above facts and circumstances, the
petitioner may file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order
before the respondent no. 5 who is claimed to be the competent authority,
and within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of
this order, the respondent no. 5 shall consider the petitioner’s claim and
take a an appropriate decision thereon by passing a reasoned and speaking
order and shall communicate such decision effectively to the petitioner. If
the respondent no. 5 finds the petitioner’s claim to be genuine and
acceptable, then he may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.
With the above observation, this application is disposed
of.
Let a copy of this order be given to the counsel for the
respondents.
Ambastha/ (D.G.R. Patnaik,J)