Sunita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

petitioner and thereby affirming the order passed by the respondent D.M. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus Patna High Court CWJC No.14772 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2013 2 directing/ commanding the concerned respondents to treat the lady petitioner as valid and bonafide candidate for the aforesaid post and to allow her to work on the said post.” Mr. R.K.Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in support of the aforementioned relief has submitted that the selection of the petitioner was correctly made by following prescribed procedure by Aam Sabha but the authorities have interfered in such selection on a complete conception of fact and the provision governing selection and engagement of Anganwari Sevika. In this case though no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, learned counsel for the State has supported the impugned order by stating that the facts which have been noted by the authorities for cancelling the selection and appointment of the petitioner have not been controverted by the petitioner in the writ application. He has also submitted that the most important thing, namely, the mapping of the centre was not taken into account by the Aam Sabha, inasmuch as the centre had a majority of Scheduled Caste as has been held in the order of the Collector of the District but the selection and appointment of the petitioner was made who belongs to general category. Mr. Shukla in reply has produced the certified copy of Patna High Court CWJC No.14772 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2013 3 the mapping dated 8.11.2006 and would submit that at least from the documents made available to the petitioner after filing of the writ application, being certified copy of the proceedings will bear out that there was no infirmity in the selection and appointment of the petitioner. This Court would find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Shukla for more than one reason. Firstly, the impugned order cancelling selection and appointment of the petitioner dated 28.9.2007 passed by the District Magistrate, Kaimur and its affirmance by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna in the order dated 21.7.2008 has been sought to be assailed after expiry of a period of 4-5 years, inasmuch as the writ application was filed on 13.8.2012. There is no explanation whatsoever for such a huge delay and the scheme of Anganwari under which post has to be filled up for achieving the object as set out by the Apex Court, this Court will not now disturb the arrangement which has been made after removal of the petitioner from the post of Anganwari Sevika. Even on merits this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order, inasmuch as in the appellate order the Divisional Commissioner has discussed the aspect at great length. In fact the Collector of the District had found the Patna High Court CWJC No.14772 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2013 4 selection of the petitioner to be bad by recording the following reasons: ^^fuEu U;k;ky; ls izkIr vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd vkaxuokM+h dsUnz oSuk] iz[kaM&dqnjk esa lsfodk ds in ij p;fur Jherh lquhrk nsoh …vihydRrkZ‰ ds fo:n~/k izkIr ifjokn i= ij fu;qfDr tkap ny }kjk lefiZr izfrosnu] cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s izfrosnu ,oa Ldzhfuax dfefV ds eUrO; ds voyksdu ds mijkUr ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] dSewj us vihdRrkZ eqf[k;k ,oa iapk;r lfpo dks uksfVl fuxZr djrs gq, mifLFkr gksdj lk{; lfgr fyf[kr c;ku izLrqr djus dk funs’k fn;kA vihydRrkZ] iz[kaM ds eqf[k;k ,oa iapk;r lfpo Hkh mifLFkr gq,A ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] dSewj us tkap izfrosnu dk voyksdu djus rFkk eqf[k;k] iapk;r lfpo ,oa vihydRrkZ dks lquus ds mijkUr vkns’k ikfjr fd;kA ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] dSewj ds vkns’k esa mYysf[kr gS fd& mDr vkns’k esa vkxs vafdr gS fd ^^vkaxuokM+h dsUnz oSuk esa lsfodk ds in ij Jherh lquhrk nsoh dk fd;k x;k p;u fu;ekuqdqy ugha gSA dk;Zokgh iqfLrdk dks ns[kus ls Li"V gksrk gS fd lkekU; tkfr ds gh vf/kd vad ikus okys vH;FkhZ dks fcuk dksbZ larks"ktud dkj.k crk;s p;u ls p;ueqDr dj fn;k x;k gSA los Z ,oa eSfiax iath dk vuqeksnu vke lHkk ls ugha djk;k x;k gS vkSj u gh og iapk;r lfefr ls ikfjr gh gSA p;u dh izfdz;k esa ojh;rk dk /;ku ugha j[kk x;k gSa losZ ,oa eSfiax iath Hkh =qfViw.kZ gS D;ksafd v/kksgLrk{kjh ds le{k fn;s x;s c;ku ls Li"V gksrk gS fd ftl {ks= dks lkekU; oxZ ckgqY; ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gS] og vuqlwfpr tkfr ckgqY; gSA tc losZ ,oa eSfiax iath gh fu;ekuqlkj la?kkfjr ugha gS rks vkxs dh vU; lHkh dkjZokbZ Hkh Lor% fu;e fo:n~/k gks tkrh gSA** mDr vkns’k esa vkxs vafdr gS fd ^^vfHkys[k esa miLFkkfir lHkh izfrosnuksa ds voyksdu rFkk eqf[k;k] iapk;r lfpo] usojkl iapk;r rFkk Jherh lquhrk nsoh] p;fur lsfodk …vihydRrkZ‰ dks lquus ds mijkUr ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd eqf[k;k] cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh rFkk iapk;r lfpo ds }kjk euekus <azx ls lsfodk dk p;u fd;k x;k gS] vr% foHkkxh; ifji= la[;k 2783 Patna High Court CWJC No.14772 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2013 5 fnukad 03-10-2006 }kjk fuxZr ekxZn’kZu esa foLrkfjr izko/kku ds vkyksd esa lsfodk Jherh lquhrk nsoh dk ukekadu i= jn~n fd;k tkrk gS] rFkk mls okil eqf[k;k iapk;r usojkl dks Hkstrs gq, funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd os ljdkjh funs’k@ekin.M ds vkyksd es lgh ,oa lqik= mEehnokjksa dk p;u djsaA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] dqnjk dks funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd os ekxZnf’kZdk dh dafMdk&6 esa foLrkfjr izko/kkuksa ds vkyksd es a lsfodk ds p;u gsrq fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k dk ikyu djrs gq, u;s fljs ls p;u dh izfdz;k iw.kZ djsaA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh] dqnjk dks ;g Hkh funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl vkns’k dh izkfIr ds lkFk eqf[k;k xzke iapk;r usojkl ls leUo; dj foHkkxh; ekxZnf’kZdk esa of.kZr izko/kku dk v{kj’k% ikyu djrs gq, iapk;r Lrjh; p;u lfefr ds }kjk p;u dh izfdz;k dks ewrZ :i nsaA** When this finding was assailed by the petitioner before the Commissioner in appeal the Commissioner also came to a finding that the mapping register and the mapping of the concerned Anganwari centre did not contain figure of population. In this regard the appellate authority had held as follows: ^^nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus] vihy vkosnu rFkk mlds lkFk layXu dkxtkrksa ,oa fuEu U;k;ky; ls izkIr vfHkys[k@dkxtkrksa ds voyksdu ds i’pkr~ eSa ;g ikrk gwW fd ^^eSfiax iath** ,oa eSfiax ds vk/kkj ij vkaxuokM+h dsUnz ls lacaf/kr iks"kd {ks= dh ikfjokfjd losZ ls lacaf/kr iath vfHkys[k ij miyC/k ugha gS vkSj u gh vihdRrkZ vFkok fdlh i{k }kjk izLrqr dh x;h] ftlls Li"V gksrk gS fd foHkkxh; i= la[;k 2783 fnukad 03-10-2006 }kjk fuxZr ekxZnf’kZdk dh dafMdk 2…A‰ ,oa 2…AA‰…d‰ esa fufgr izko/kku ds rgr eSfiax dk dk;Z dj eSafiax iath rS;kj ugha dh x;h gS] vkSj u gh eSfiax iath ds vk/kkj ij ykHkkFkhZ ifjokjksa esa lcls vf/kd ifjokjksa okys oxZ dh fLFkfrA bl izdkj ekxZnf’kZdk dh dafMdk 2…A‰ ,oa 2…AA‰…d‰ esa fufgr izko/kku ds rgr dkjZokbZ fd;s fcuk gh fnukad 19-05-2007 dks vke lHkk cqykdj Patna High Court CWJC No.14772 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2013 6 vihydRrkZ dk p;u dj fy;k x;kA cky fodkl ifj;kstuk dh eSfiax ds laca/k es a lesfdr cky fodkl ;kstuk vUrxZr vkaxuokM+h lsfodk@lgkf;dk ds p;u laca/kh ekxZnf’kZdk 2006 dh dafMdk 2…A‰ es a mfYyf[kr gS fd ^^cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh ,oa efgyk i;Zosf{kdk ds }kjk loZizFke iz[kaM@ifj;kstuk {ks= dh eSfiax dh tk; rkfd ;g Kkr gks lds fd fu/kkZfjr ekin.Mksa ds vuqlkj fdu&fdu Vksyksa ;k xkaoksa esa xjhch js[kk ls uhps jgus okyksa esa lcls vf/kd xjhc vkSj detksj oxZ ds yksx fuokl djrs gS] mu yksxksa ds iks"k.k vkSj lkekftd Lrj dks mij mBkus dh vko’;drk gS vkSj fdu&fdu LFkkuksa ij vkaxuokM+h dsUnz LFkkfir fd;k tkuk vko’;d gSA** lesfdr cky fodkl ;kstukUrxZr vkaxuokM+h lsfodk@lgkf;dk ds p;u laca/kh ekxZnf’kZdk] 2006 dh dafMdk 2…AA‰…d‰ esa vkxs vafdr gS fd eSfiax dk;Z iwjk gksus ds ,d i{k ds vUnj cky fodkl ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh ,oa efgyk i;Zosf{kdk xkao ,oa Vksyk Lrj ij cSBd vk;ksftr dj xzke iapk;r izfrfuf/k;ksa@tu izfrfuf/k ls foe’kZ dj ;g fu/kkZfjr djsaxs fd fdl xkao esa vkaxuokM+h dsUnz LFkkfir fd;s tk; rFkk fdl dsUnz ds lsok {ks= esa dkSu&dkSu ls xkao@Vksys gksxas vkSj ml dsUnz ls ykHkkfUor dkSu gksaxsA vkaxuokM+h dsUnz ^^iks"kd {ks=** ds ckgqY; oxZ ds Vksys esa izkFkfedrk ds vk/kkj ij LFkkfir fd;s tk;saxsA ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh izR;sd vkaxuokM+h dsUnz ds lsok {ks= ds ykHkqdksa ls lacaf/kr lwpuk ,oa la/kkj.k ^^eSfiax iath** esa djsaxs rFkk p;fur vkaxuokM+h dsUnzksa dh lwph vkSj lsok {ks= rFkk ykHkkfUorksa ds czsdvi dks xzke iapk;r ls mijksDr cSBd ds ,d lIrkg ds vUnj vuqeksfnr djk ysaxsA** vxj mi;q ZDr ds }kjk ,d lIrkg ds vUnj bls vuqeksfnr ugha fd;k tkrk gS rks bldk vuqeksnu ifj;kstuk inkf/kdkjh iapk;r lfefr ls ,d i{k ds vUnj djk ysxsA mi;qZDr of.kZr fLFkfr es a ;g Li"V gS fd vkaxuokM+h dsUnz oSuk] iz[kaM&dqnjk ds fy, lsfodk dk p;u foHkkxh; ekxZnf’kZdk 2006 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuq:i ugha gqvk gSA eSfiax iath gh vkaxuokM+h dsUnz] mlds iks"kd {ks= rFkk mlds ykHkkfUorksa dk vk/kkj gSA ftyk inkf/kdkjh] dSewj ds vkns’k ls Li"V gS fd lacaf/kr i{kksa dks lquokbZ dk ekSdk nsus ,oa lHkh rF;ksa ij xkSj djus ds mijkUr gh vihydRrkZ dks Patna High Court CWJC No.14772 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2013 7 vkaxuokM+h lafodk ds in ls p;u eqDr fd;k x;k gS rFkk u;s fljs ls p;u dh izfdz;k iw.kZ djus dk vkns’k fn;k x;k gSA vr% mi;q ZDr of.kZr fLFkfr esa ftyk n.Mkf/kdkjh] dSewj }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 28-09-2007 esa fdlh izdkj dh gLr{ksi dh vko’;drk esa mfpr ugha le>rk gwWA Qyr% vihy vkosnu vLohd‘r fd;k tkrk gSA** The aforesaid finding of fact coupled with the discussion on the manner of selection as envisaged in the Government resolution and its clear violation of Gram Shabha will leave nothing for speculation that the selection and engagement of the petitioner was made in a most illegal manner. Even today when Mr. Shukla has produced the relevant extract of the mapping register the same does not contain the figure of the population dividing it between general category, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category, Backward category and other Backward category. The scheme makes a provision for appointment of the most populated community and finding is that this centre has the largest representation of Scheduled Caste. It thus becomes clear that the petitioner’s selection even otherwise could not have been made as she belongs to general category. That apart even among general category the petitioner was not the best candidate because Neelam Devi was in fact having qualification of Intermediate and the others also were Matriculate and therefore, the selection of the petitioner only a Patna High Court CWJC No.14772 of 2012 (2) dt.31-01-2013 8 matriculate in preference of others by holding her eligible on the ground of belonging to general category was itself impermissible in view of the Scheme of engagement on the post of Anganwari Sevika. These aspects have been fully considered by the authorities as has been noted above. That being so, this application both on account of delay as well as on merits is fit to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-