Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Social Welfare v. Government of Bihar, Patna
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8334 of 2008 ====================================================== Uma Devi @ Uma Kumari, wife of Sri Binay Singh, resident of Mohalla- New Diliyan (Bheriya Tola), P.S. Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner. 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Versus Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Collector, Rohtas, Sasaram. 4. The District Programme Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Dehri Sadar, P.S.- Dehri-on- Sone, District-Rohtas. 6. The Ward Councilor, War No.21 of Dehri-Dalmiyan Nagar Municipality, P.S. P.S.- Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas. 7. Sanju Kumari, wife of Sri Satyendra Singh, Mohalla-New Diliyan (Bheriya Tola), P.S. Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas, Sasaram. .... .... Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sajid Salim Khan For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Sanjay Kumar @ Manu For the State : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey, SC-8. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 05 19-09-2013 This case exemplifies how officials manipulate things and officials are ready to be misled. This case relates to selection and appointment of Anganwari Seviak in respect of Mohalla New Diliyan (Bheriya Tola), P.S. Dehri-on-Sone, District-Rohtas. The petitioner was selected, appointed and sent for training and, thereafter, her selection was challenged by respondent no.7, Sanju Kumari, wife of Sri Satyendra Singh. Upon selection being challenged before the District Collector, Rohtas, he delegated the matter to the District Programme Officer for enquiry and necessary action. The District Programme Officer allegedly Patna High Court CWJC No.8334 of 2008 (05) dt.19-09-2013 2/6 conducted an enquiry and found that respondent no.7 was wrongly left out of consideration. She was more meritorious and as such he cancelled the selection of petitioner. Respondent no.7, being more meritorious, was ordered to be selected and appointed. Respondent no.7 accordingly was appointed and has been working. This brought the petitioner to this Court immediately. Respondent no.7 was noticed and has appeared. State and respondent no.7 have filed counter affidavits. This Court, not being satisfied because of spacious plea raised by the contesting respondents, directed for production of the original records. Learned counsel for the State has fairly produced the original records for perusal. The records were also seen by the respondent no.7 and the writ petitioner. Having heard the parties at length
Decision
and with their consent this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the notice given by the Aam Sabha calling for applications for appointment of Anganwari Sevika and Anganwari Sahayika, petitioner duly applied for being considered for appointment of Anganwari Sevika. Petitioner’s case would be that respondent no.7 did not apply for the said post. After scrutiny when the panel was prepared it was of four names according to merit. This was placed Patna High Court CWJC No.8334 of 2008 (05) dt.19-09-2013 3/6 before the Aam Sabha on 25.06.2007. The Aam Sabha decided upon the selection of the petitioner for Anganwari Sevika and, accordingly, petitioner was selected. Consequent to her selection, she was appointed and sent for training. It is thereafter that objection was received in the office of the Collector and the matter entrusted to the District Programme officer for enquiry. Before the District Programme Officer, the plea taken by respondent no.7 was that she had filed her application for Anganwari Sevika under receipt no.1 dated 01.06.2007. This was given to the lady supervisor, Pushpa Kumari in the office of the C.D.P.O. but she forgot to put it up when the applications were being scrutinized and as such respondent no.7 could not be empanelled even though she is more meritorious than the petitioner. Pushpa Kumari in turn accepted that she had duly received the form of respondent no.7 but forgot to place it for consideration. This spacious plea of respondent no.7 was accepted by the District Programme Officer who cancelled the selection of petitioner after she had been sent for training and after due appointment. The case of respondent no.7 is that her application was duly receipted as serial no.1 dated 01.06.2007. A copy of the receipt is annexed with the counter affidavit. This Court noticed the unusual features where a person applies, the person receiving Patna High Court CWJC No.8334 of 2008 (05) dt.19-09-2013 4/6 all the applications forgets about it. The Aam Sabha is held, the panel is discussed, no objection is raised. Selection and appointment is made but no objection is raised. Selected candidate is sent for training but no objection is raised and then suddenly officials came with the plea that they had forgotten to consider one of the applications. It is in this perspective this Court directed to produce the original records. On perusal of the original records, it is apparent that all parties deliberately tried to manoeuvre things wrongly in favour of respondent no.7. First, respondent no.7 stated that she had filed application for the post of Anganwari Sevika and her receipt no.1 was dated 01.06.2007. In her receipt annexed with her counter affidavit the post of Anganwari Sevika was tick marked that mean that her application was for Anganwari Sevika. When the original records are produced, it is apparent that it was one Kusum Devi whose application was serial having been received as no.1 dated 01.06.2007 and not respondent no.7. When we come to the receipt, a photocopy whereof is available in the original records, though the receipt of respondent no.7 is shown to be serial no.1, there is no tick mark thereon showing for which post application was. This clearly contrary to the counter affidavit of respondent no.7. The reason is obvious. Immediately thereafter the application of Patna High Court CWJC No.8334 of 2008 (05) dt.19-09-2013 5/6 respondent no.7, Sanju Kumari, wife of Satyendra Singh is there. The application clearly shows that the post of Anganwari Sevika was cut out leaving Sevika then by hand also it is written post applied for Sahayika and not as professed. This clearly shows that respondent no.7 had in fact applied for the post of Sahayika and her receipt number for Sahayika was 1. She had never applied for Sevika. All the story built up by the lady Supervisor, Pushpa Kumari was clearly cock and bull story built up to wrongfully held respondent no.7 to secure a post. It is obvious that once selection was made and respondent no.7 found that she was more meritorious she got things manoeuvred in her favour and the authorities played around her. At this stage, I may also notice a very significant fact that if in fact respondent no.7 had applied for Anganwari Sevika post then her husband himself was present in the very Aam Sabha meeting where petitioner was selected and where respondent no.7 was not even empanelled he has sign the proceedings. He never objected which clearly shows that the story set up by respondent no.7 is false to the Court with officials playing along with her. I, therefore, have no hesitation in finding that the writ petitioner was correctly and bona fidely selected but her selection and appointment has wrongly been cancelled by the C.D.P.O. by Patna High Court CWJC No.8334 of 2008 (05) dt.19-09-2013 6/6 the impugned orders, as contained in Annexures-13 & 13/A dated 31.01.2008. Further, appointment of respondent no.7 is thus clearly mala fide. Thus, Annexures-13 & 13/A is quashed. Consequently, respondent no.7 has to be removed to make place for the petitioner. It would be the responsibility of the Collector of the district that the petitioner immediately reinstated as Anganwari Sevika after removing respondent no.7. It would necessarily follow that the Collector of the district would take immediate steps not only to take serious administrative action against the lady Supervisor and other officials concerned, which may culminate in their prosecution as well. The records as produced by the learned counsel for the State are returned. With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Trivedi/- (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)