IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No.3523 of 2008
Lalita Devi. ......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Jharkhand & Ors. .......Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA NATH TIWARI
For the Petitioner : Mrs. Vipul Divya, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. D. K. Dubey, G.P.I
04/14.07.2011
: The petitioner is permitted to make necessary correction in
the cause title of the writ petition.
Though the case is listed under the heading “For Orders”, it
has been submitted by the parties that the pleadings are
complete and the writ petition itself can be taken up and heard.
This writ petition is, thus, heard on merit and is being disposed of
by this order.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondent no.5
has been illegally appointed as Sevika, though she was not
selected as Sevika in the Aam Sabha held on 11th June, 2007.
It has been stated that the Respondent no.5 has no
requisite eligibility and suitability for being appointed as Sevika.
The petitioner had applied only for Sevika and she possesses all
eligibility, but she has not been selected. The villagers specifically
denied to have selected the Respondent no.5 as Sevika in the
meeting of the aforesaid Aam Sabha. The petitioner also
protested against the appointment of Respondent no.5, but no
order has been passed.
Learned G.P.I, appearing on behalf of the respondents,
submitted that the Respondent no.5 was selected by the
resolution of the Aam Sabha, as has been also stated in the
counter affidavit filed by the Respondent nos.2 to 4. Aam Sabha
has jurisdiction to select Sevika, according to the guideline of the
Government and since the said guideline has been followed in
the appointment of Respondent no.5, there is no illegality in her
appointment. Learned counsel, however, admitted that if there is
any complaint against the selection by the Aam Sabha, the
Deputy Commissioner of the district is the competent authority
to consider the same and pass appropriate order. It has been
2
further admitted that no specific order has been passed by
the Deputy Commissioner on the protest of the petitioner as well
as the villagers.
Considering the said submissions and the facts and
circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of, giving
liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation, along with a
copy of this order, before the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro
Respondent no.2, mentioning the details of her grievance/claim.
On receipt of the representation, the said respondent shall
consider the same and pass reasoned order within two months
from the date of receipt of the representation.
(Narendra Nath Tiwari, J.)
Sanjay/