Shabnam Khatoon v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) the
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.1295 of 2020 ----- Renu Devi .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand, through Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. 2. The District Social Welfare Officer, Palamau. 3. The Child Development Project Officer, Panki. 4. Shabnam Khatoon ----- .......... Respondents. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : : For the State For Res. No.4 :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Anshuman Kumar, A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II Md. Faruque Ansari, Advocate ----- Order No.08 Date: 07.11.2023 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order
Decision
dated 30th December, 2019 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau- respondent no.1 in Misc. Case no.02 of 2018-19, whereby in pursuance of the order dated 28th June, 2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.5954 of 2010 (Shabnam Khatoon Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.) the respondent no.1 has cancelled the selection/appointment of the petitioner, observing that the selection/appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika of “Ambabar Pachiyar Tola” Anganbari Centre was contrary to the relevant rules and regulations of the Government with further direction to the District Social Welfare Officer, Palamau/Child Development Project Officer, Panki to appoint suitable candidate among those who were present in the general meeting held on 4th February, 2010, as per the rules and regulations of the Government. -2- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.4- Shabnam Khatoon had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.5954 of 2010 before this Court, challenging the order dated 20th July, 2010, whereby the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sevika of the said centre. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 28th June, 2018 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau- respondent no.1 to verify the inter se merit and claim of the petitioner vis- à-vis respondent no.4 and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law as well as the extant guidelines/circulars etc. within a timeframe. In pursuance of the said order of this Court, the respondent no.1 passed the impugned order dated 30th December, 2019 in Misc. Case no.02 of 2018-19, giving erroneous finding that the selection/appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari Sevika of the said centre was made contrary to the rules and regulations of the Government. Moreover, the said order was passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Though it has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 30th December, 2019 that both the parties were informed to ensure their presence on the next date, yet no notice to that effect was ever served to the petitioner. Since, she was totally unaware of the date fixed by the respondent no.1 for hearing of the case in terms with the aforesaid order passed by this Court, she could not appear before the said authority, which led to passing of the said erroneous order. -3- 3. Mr. Anshuman Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-II appearing on behalf of the State respondents submits that a supplementary counter affidavit dated 31st October, 2023 has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 in terms with the order dated 12th April, 2021 passed in the present case, specifically stating inter alia that the notices were issued to both the parties through ordinary post by the legal cell of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide memo no.795 dated 10th September, 2018 for their appearance in Misc. Case No.02 of 2018-19. The copies of memo no.795 dated 10th September, 2018 as well as despatch register have been annexed as Annexures-A & B, respectively, to the said counter affidavit. 4. It is further submitted that the respondent no.1 while passing the impugned order has not committed any error, as he has duly considered the number of residents of different communities in the village concerning the said Anganbari Centre. Moreover, the educational qualifications etc. of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent no.4 were also considered while reaching a conclusion that the petitioner was selected/ appointed as Anganbari Sevika of the said centre contrary to the rules and regulations of the Government. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondentno.4 also submits that the impugned order dated 30th December, 2019 passed by the respondent no.1 is completely justified and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court. -4- 6. The petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 30th December, 2019 primarily on the ground that she was not served any notice for her appearance on 14th September, 2018 in connection with Misc. Case no.02 of 2018-19 due to which she did not get opportunity to present her case and the impugned order dated 30th December, 2019 has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. Though it has been stated in paragraph no.8 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 that the notices were issued by the legal cell of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau to both the parties through ordinary post vide memo no.795 dated 10th September, 2018 asking them to appear in Misc. Case no.02 of 2018-19 on 14th September, 2018, yet nothing has been brought on record to suggest that the notice issued to the petitioner was validly served to her. 8. Thus, this Court is of the view that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have failed to satisfy this Court that the notice issued to the petitioner for her appearance in Misc. Case no.02 of 2018-19 on 14th September, 2018 was duly served to her. On that score alone, the impugned order dated 30th December, 2019 cannot be sustained in law and as such the same having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice is hereby set aside. -5- 9. The matter is remanded to the respondent no.1 to take a fresh informed decision in this regard after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Sanjay/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)