SHRIKANTI DEVI v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Patna High Court CWJC No.4498 of 2013 (2) dt.15-03-2013 3 Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre No. 130 (village-Singhi Dakshin Bhag), Gram Panchayat Raj Garar, Block Zeeradei, District Siwan as the petitioner has been terminated on the basis of frivolous charges and exparte enquiry report. (iv) For issuance appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to allow the petitioner to continue on the post of Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre No. 130(village- Singhi Dakshin Bhag), Gram Panchayat Raj Garar, Block Zeeradai, District Siwan as she has been selected on

26.04.2007 and after lapse of about six years the order has been passed for terminating her service on the basis of political pairvi and on the basis of exparte enquiry report. (v) For issuance appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to pay the arrears or salary as well as current salary to the petitioner month to month as she is discharging her duty without any complain at any point of time from any corner and the Anganbari Centre in question has been inspected time to time, but no irregularity of any kind has been found." Patna High Court CWJC No.4498 of 2013 (2) dt.15-03-2013 4 Admittedly, the petitioner as per her own showing had secured only 433 marks in matriculation examination and had been placed in second division but her selection on the post of Anganbadi Sevika was made on the basis of she being the first divisioner with

65.7 per cent marks. In view of the aforementioned aspect, this becomes clear that when persons including Sunita Kumari having 60.7 per cent marks and even Sweta Kumari having 50.7 per cent marks were having higher marks to the petitioner, her being shown first in the panel was based on incorrect marks. The question as to whether the petitioner had produced such marks or not would not be relevant for the present in view of the admitted position that the majority for the Centre in question was that of Scheduled Castes to which category both Sunita Kumari and Sweta Kumari had belonged. In view of the above, the petitioner belonging to the backward category and having only 433 marks, which would mean less than 50 per cent marks, cannot claim that her appointment on the post of Anganbadi Sevika was justified. In view of the above, this Patna High Court CWJC No.4498 of 2013 (2) dt.15-03-2013 5 application is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the Collector of the district has gone into this aspect in the impugned order with full details reading as follows:- ^^vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr dsUnz dh oxZcgqYkrk ,oa vad i= esa gsjkQsjh ds laca/k esa ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh dks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh thjknsbZ ls izfrosnu izkIr dj izLrqr djus ds iwoZ esa fnukad 28-09-12 dks funs’k fn;k x;k Fkk tks muds i=kad 3437 fnukad 06-12-12 ls izkIr gSa cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh ,oa ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh ds izfrosnu ls Li"V gS fd eSfiax iath ds vuqlkj flaxgh …nf{k.k Hkkx‰ vkaxuckM+h dsUnz esa vuqlwfpr tkfr dh oxZ cgqyrk gSa foi{kh Jh dkfUr nsoh dk p;u eSfVzd Js.kh mRrh.kZ 65-7 izfr’kr es/kk vad ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k Fkka bl laca/k esa tkapksijkUr ik;k x;k fd oks o"kZ 1992 esa f}rh; Js.kh ls mRrhZ.k Fkh vkSj lsfodk p;u gsrq muds }kjk nwljs fo|ky; dk QthZ izek.k i= nkf[ky fd;k x;k FkkA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh }kjk izsf"kr ewy vke lHkk iath] eSfiax iath ,oa ewy vkosnu i= rFkk mlds lkFk nkf[ky dkxtkrksa dk voyksdu djus ls vkosfndk ds vkjksiksa dh iqf"V gksrh gSA Jherh dkUrh nsoh ds ewy vkosnu esa mij 65-7 izfr’kr vafdr gSA vkosnu ds ihNs Hkh vksojjkbZfVax dj 65-7 izfr’kr vafdr gSa rRdkyhu iapk;r lfpo ,oa eqf[k;k }kjk rS;kj es/kk vad ds vk/kkj ij esfjV fyLV esa Hkh eSfVzd esa 65-7 izfr’kr ds vk/kkj ij vke lHkk dh dk;Zokgh iath ds i‘"B la0 17 ij fu;ekuqlkj mfYyf[kr jgus ,oa izFke LFkku ds vk/kkj ij p;u fd;k x;kA dza0 la0 vkosfndk dk uke firk@ifr dk uke xzke Vksyk dk uke ’kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk 1 2 3 Jhdkafr nsoh gfj’kadj flaxgh eSfVzd lqfurk dqekjh fojsUnz dq0 flaxgh eSfVzd ’osrk dqekjh txyky flaxgh eSfVzd oxZ izkIrkad dk es/kk 05-08-77 65-77 fi0 oxZ 05-05-79 60-7 vuq0 08-12-88 50-7 vuq0 foi{kh JhdkfUr nsoh ds ewy vkosnu ds lkFk nkf[ky vad i= dzekad 984065 S.D. Girls High School, Siwan, esa fuEu fooj.kh vafdr gSA& Roll Code 9215 Roll No. Name of Candidate Examination Aggregate Result 0348 Shri Kanti Kumari Annual 1992 592 1st Div. tcfd mDr fo|ky; ds iz/kkuk/;kid }kjk dzkl fyLV dh Nk;k izfr layXu djrs gq, tks izfrosnu Hkstk x;k gS mldh fooj.kh Patna High Court CWJC No.4498 of 2013 (2) dt.15-03-2013 6 fuEuor gS& Roll Code 9215 Roll No. Name of Candidate Examination Aggregate Result 0348 Shri Kanti Kumari Annual 1992 433 IInd Div. vr,o mHk; i{k ds foK vf/koDrkvksa }kjk fn, x, rdksZa dh foospuk ,oa ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh ls izkIr izfrosnu ls Li"V gS fd foi{kh JhdkfUr nsoh dk vkaxuokM+h lsfodk ds :i esa p;u lfefr }kjk fd;k x;k p;u foHkkxh; ekxZnf’kZdk 2006 ds funsZ’kksa ds foijhr ,oa vfu;fer gS vkSj mudk p;u forged dkxtkr@vad rkfydk ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gSA vr,o mudk p;u jn~n fd;k tkrk gSaA ftyk izksxzke inkf/kdkjh@cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh dks funsZ’k fn;k tkrk gS fd lacaf/kr vkaxuokM+h dsUnz ds fy, u, fljs ls v|ru ekxZnf’kZdk ds vuqlkj lsfodk p;u dh fof/kor dkjZokbZ lqfuf’pr djsaA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh foi{kh Jh dkfUr nsoh ds fo:n~/k izkFkfedh ntZ djus dh Hkh rRdky dkjZokbZ lqfuf’fpr djsaxh rFkk vc rd muds }kjk ljdkj ls izkIr jkf’k dh olwyh dh Hkh dkjZokbZ djsaxahA jkf’k okil ugha djus ij Public Remand Recovery Act ds vUrxZr olwyh gsrq muds fo:n~/k eqdnek Hkh ntZ djk;saxh vkSj d‘r dkjZokbZ dh lwpuk HkstsaxhA** require interference from this Court as they are essentially questions of fact and could not be shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be based on any error of record. That being so, this application has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)