1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 1723 of 2008 ------- 1.Santra Gope, W/o Sri Ramdas Gope, Resident of Village-Bankati, P.O-Tikar, P.S.-Ichagarh, District-Saraikella-Kharswan. 2.Revati Gope, W/o Sri Madhusudan Gope, Resident of Village-Bankati, P.O-Tikar, P.S.-Ichagarh, District-Saraikella-Kharswan. ... Petitioners Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand; 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharswan at Seraikella; 3.The Deputy Development Commissioner, Saraikella-Kharswan at Seraikella; 4.The Child Development Project Officer, Ichagarh, P.O & P.S- Ichagarh, Saraikella-Kharswan; 5.The District Programme Officer, Seraikella; 6.Shrimati Sunita Gorai, Wife of Sri Anant Lal Gorai, Presently residing at Village & P.O – tikar, P.S. Ichagarh, Saraikella-Kharswan; 7.Sulekha Gope, Wife of Sri Dinesh Chandra Gope, Presently residing at Village & P.O – tikar, P.S. Ichagarh, Saraikella-Kharswan; .... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. H.K. Mahto, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 : Mr. Fahad Allam, J.C to G.A. III Md. Shamim Akhtar, G.A. III For Respondent No. 6 : Ms. Subha Jha, Advocate -------- C.A.V. On 08.11.2017 Pronounced on 10/01/2018 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia, prayed for cancellation the selection and appointment of respondent nos. 6 and 7 as Sevika and Sahayika respectively for Anganbari Centre at Bankati village and to select and appoint petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on the respective posts.
2. The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that on 09.09.2007 in the evening, the respondent-C.D.P.O came to village Bankati and told few persons to submit their certificates for appointment on the post of Sevika and Sahayika, on which, some persons deposited their certificates. Later on, it was known to petitioners that respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been selected and appointed on the post of Sevika and Sahayika, against which, the 2 petitioners objected by submitting representations before the respondents-authorities. It has been averred that basing on such complaint, the B.D.O, Ichagarh Block made table enquiry report and sent it to the respondent-C.D.P.O, Seraikella, who deviating the issue submitted that petitioner no. 1 was not 18 years of age on 09.09.2007, i.e. on the date of submission of application. It has further been submitted that the villagers also submitted representation stating that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are not the inhabitants of that village and further no Aam Sabha was held for their selection, but, it did not evoke any response.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that appointment of respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been done without holding Aam Sabha de hors the guidelines meant for appointment of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika. It has further been submitted that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are not the inhabitants of village Bankati and they are from different village of Ichagarh block; but ignoring this fact and relevant guidelines, the respondent-authority selected them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners and even villagers made several representations bringing it to the knowledge of the authorities concerned regarding arbitrariness and favourtism done in selection of anganbari sevika and sahayika but it did not evoke any response. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a decision rendered in the case of Renu Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors as reported in 2008 (3) JCR506(Jhr).
4. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents-State reiterating the averments made in the counter affidavit submitted that on 09.09.2007 in Aam Sabha in presence of Gram Pradhan, applications were invited for selection of Anganwari Sewaki and 3 Sahayika for Kendra Bankati Tikar-IV under the supervision of C.D.P.O, Ichagarh wherein several persons including petitioners put their signature on the proceeding and pursuant thereto respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been appointed. So far residential status of respondent no. 6-Sunita Gorai is concerned, she has submitted a certificate, wherein her father-in-law has been shown to be a displaced person from Ichagarh now settled at village Bankati. It has further been submitted that from the testimonials of petitioner no. 1, it was seen that she was under age on the date of meeting of Aam Sabha, hence her candidature had rightly been cancelled.
5. A counter affidavit has also been filed by respondent no. 6, wherein it has been averred that her father-in-law is a displaced person, whose lands were acquired under Swarnarekaha Project and and he has been rehabilated in village Ichagarh. In Aam Sabha, she being the most eligible candidate and was fulfilling all eligibility criteria for the post in question was unanimously selected by Aam Sabha.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the documents on record, the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate any legally tenable point to warrant interference by this Court, due to following facts and reasons: (I).From bare perusal of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by respondent-State, which is minutes of proceeding dated 09.09.2007, it appears that the meeting of Aam Sabha was held in presence of Gram Pradhan under the guidance of C.D.P.O, who is competent authority. It further appears that even the petitioners have put their signature on the minute of the proceeding of Aam Sabha. Under such circumstances, the submission of learned 4 counsel for the petitioners that the appointment was done without holding Aam Sabha is baseless and has no leg to stand. (ii).So far residential status of respondent no. 6 is concerned that has well been explained by respondents-State as well as by respondent no. 6 in their affidavits; hence that issue set at rest. So far age of petitioner no. 1 is concerned admittedly on the date in question i.e. on 09.09.2007 she had not completed 18 years of age and furthermore, no rule/guideline has been shown by learned counsel for the petitioners showing provision for relaxation of age; hence her candidature had rightly been cancelled. (iii).In the facts and circumstances, the decision referred by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Renu Devi (Supra) is not applicable in the case at hand as it is on different context.
7. As a logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-