IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.( S ) No. 2115 of 2008
Smt Aarti Devi …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and others … Respondents.
Coram : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK.
For the petitioner (s) : Mr A Banerjee
For the respondents : Mr. Jalisur Rahman, JC to G P III
24.04. 2009. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is
against the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 5 as Aangan
Bari Sewika of village Baraikhurd, Kasmar, in the district of Bokaro,
rejecting the petitioner’s candidature. The contention of the petitioner is
that in the village meeting held on 13.3.007 the petitioner submitted her
candidature for selection as Aangan Bari Sewika in the village. The
selection of the respondent no. 5 was made contrary to the laid down rules
of procedure and the regulations inasmuch as though rules have been
laid down for giving preference to the persons who are below the poverty
line, the petitioner who possesses the requisite eligibility criteria, has been
denied selection and appointment. On the other hand, respondent no. 5
being not below the poverty line and her husband already being
employed and respondent no. 5 on the date of selection being also being
appointed as Aangan Bari Sewika in another Centre, has been selected.
The petitioner had filed her representation before the respondent no. 3, but
till date, no step has been taken by him to inquire into the matter .
Learned counsel for the State respondent submits that
though respondent no. 5 was earlier employed as para teacher, but prior to
her selection, she had resigned from the post. Respondent no. 5 was
found to be the most qualified among the entire set of candidates who had
offered their candidatures for selection as Aangan Bari Sewika.
Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that to the
petitioner’s knowledge, respondent no.5 was very much employed as a
para teacher on the date of selection and further more, the husband of
respondent no. 5 was employed as a para teacher and respondent no.5 was
2
not below poverty line, whereas the petitioner did fall below the poverty
line.
Be that as it may, the grievance of the petitioner can be
resolved by looking into the allegation for which the DE is competent. As
such petitioner may file fresh representation before the Deputy
Commissioner Bokaro (respondent no. 3) with a copy of this order and
within three months from the date of production/receipt of
representation, the respondent no. 3 shall look into the grievance of the
petitioner and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, including
respondent no. 5, shall take a decision on the representation of the
petitioner and communicate the decision to the petitioner effectively.
With the above observation, this application is disposed
of at the stage of admission itself. Let a copy of this order be given to the
counsel for the respondents.
Ambastha/ (D.G.R. Patnaik,J)