SMT. ANAR KALI KUMARI & Ors v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

P.S. Tharthari, District Nalanda at Bihar Sharif 9. Smt. Sabita Devi, W/o Mahendra Prasad, resident of village Bhathar, P.S. Tharari, District Nalanda at Bihar Sharif

Nilam Kumari, W/o Arbind Prasad, resident of village Amera, P.S. Tharthari, District Nalanda at Bihar Sharif

Puja Bharti, W/o Sanjay Kumar, village Bhathar, P.s. Tharthari, District Nalanda at Bihar Sharif … Respondents. ----------- 8.

10.7.2009 Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State as well as private respondents. In this writ application, the three petitioners have made prayer to the following effect:

The direction may be issued to the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat 2 Ameera (respondent no.8) C.D.P.O. Chandi (respondent no.6) to produce all the documents before this Hon’ble Court in connection with selection process for the post of Anganwari Sevika and Sahaika in the recent appointment process i.e. 2002 of Amera Gram Panchayat, P.S. Tharthari, District Nalanda at Bihar Sharif and if the said selection process accordance with guidelines then the said selection process may be set aside for ends of justice. The direction may be issued to respondent nos. 2 to 5 for set up enquiry and take appropriate action against Mukhiya, Amera Panchayat (respondent no.8) and C.D.P.O., Chandi (respondent no.6) for taking bribery illegal money in the selection/ appointment process of Anganwari Sevika and Sahaika.

Mr.

Ram Chandra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the appointment of private respondents no. 9 to 11 on the post of Anganwari Sevika is vitiated and contrary to the Government guidelines, inasmuch as no meeting of Gram Sabha was held and that the selection of respondents no. 9 to 11 was made without 3 ensuring presence of Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.). In this context he has further submitted that petitioner no.1 Anarkali Kumari being a Scheduled Caste woman was the most competent person to be appointed because the majority of population in the concerned centre was that of Scheduled Caste. Counsel for the State and the private respondents, on the other hand, with the help of the counter affidavits filed by them have submitted that the petitioners have made absolutely a false statement that no meeting of Gram Sabha was held and to that extent they have relied on the proceeding of the Gram Sabha containing the signature of the petitioners themselves.

It has also been pointed out by the counsel for the State that since C.D.P.O. had to supervise selection of Anganwari Sevika of a number centres on the same day, he had authorized the Block Extension Officer to supevise the centres of selection from which the appointment was to be made amongst the petitioners vis-(cid:224)-vis private respondents. In this context Mr. Mahesh Prasad, learned 4 counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents has specifically referred to paragraph no.8 of his counter affidavit giving break up of the population of the centre in which the petitioners vis-(cid:224)-vis respondent no.9 to 11 were considered and on that basis it has been explained that Kurmis had formed the majority in the centre and therefore, the selection of the petitioner no. 1, on the ground of her being a member of Schedule Caste was impermissible in the light of policy of the State Government laying down norms for selection and engagement as Anganbari Sevika.

This Court having given anxious consideration aforementioned submissions as also the materials on record is satisfied that the petitioners had tried to mislead this Court by swearing a false affidavit that no Gram Sabha meeting has been held specially when they have not denied their signature on the proceeding of Gram Sabha, brought on record by the Respondents in their counter affidavit. In fact for such act on the part of the petitioners, had they been not ladies, this 5 Court would have initiated proceedings for perjury by instituting an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In any event their such dubious conduct would go to show that the petitioners have at least not approached this Court with clean hands and their writ application is fit to be dismissed on this ground alone. The question majority population in an area around the centre is essentially a question of fact and for that purpose the scheme of the Government lays mapping of the area and such mapping of the area is primarily to be based on the number of residents which can be found even on the basis of voters.

If on that criteria the Gram Sabha in its meeting has selected private respondents as they belong to the caste of majority of those centers, this Court would not find any error in such selection. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that absence of C.D.P.O. would vitiate the entire selection made by the Zila Parishad is only to be noted for its being rejected. It has been 6 well explained in the counter affidavit that the C.D.P.O. on account of his being busy in official work relating to same selection in other centres had authorized another officer i.e. Block Extension Officer and therefore, when the signature of the deputed officer is admittedly in the proceeding book produced before this Court by way of annexures to the counter affidavit this Court would find that absence of C.D.P.O. is not fatal to the selection appointment private respondents. In fact this complaint which may has made subject matter of this writ application was also gone into at length by the District administration and the enquiry report produced before this Court would also satisfy that there was no anomaly in the selection appointment private respondents on the post of Anganwari Sevika. That being so, this Court would find no merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/