The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No.6618 of 2023 ----- Khairun Nesa .......... Petitioner. -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi. 2. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau. 3. District Welfare Officer, Palamau. 4. Child Development Project Officer, Panki, District Palamau. 5. Co-ordinator, Panki, District Palamau. 6. Roshan Arra .......... Respondents. ----- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ----- For the Petitioner : : For the State
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. N. A. Toppo, A.C. G.A.V Order No.03 Date: 21.12.2023 ----- 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the general notice dated 6th November, 2023 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.5 for holding the meeting of selection committee for selection of Anganbari Sevika of Anganbari Centre-Tunudag-I. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to confine the said selection process with respect to the petitioner and the respondent no.6 only and further to select the petitioner considering the decision of her previous selection made in the Aam Sabha held on 4th February, 2020. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide letter as contained in memo no.245 dated 13th February, 2020, the petitioner was selected as Anganbari Sevika for Anganbari Centre- Tunudag-I, District Palamau and pursuant to the said selection, she worked for more than one year. Subsequently, on objection of the respondent no.6, the Deputy 2 Commissioner, Palamau- respondent no.2 initiated a proceeding being Misc. Case no.11 of 2020-21 and passed an order on 29th January, 2021 directing to hold a fresh general body meeting for selection of Anganbari Sevika with respect to the said Centre. Aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S)
Decision
No.3802 of 2021, which was disposed of vide order dated 25th July, 2023, setting aside the order dated 29th January, 2021 passed by the respondent no.2 in Misc. Case no.11 of 2020-21 and the decision taken by the Aam Sabha on 15th March, 2022, with a direction to the respondent no.2 to ensure that a fresh Aam Sabha is held and the eligibility of the candidates including petitioner as well as the respondent no.6 be considered. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned notice dated 6th November, 2023 has not been issued by the respondent no.2, rather the same has been issued under the signature of the Co-ordinator, Panki, Palamau- respondent no.5 that too calling upon all the lady beneficiaries to participate in the selection process of Anganbari Sevika of the said Centre, which is contrary to the observation and direction contained in the order dated 25th July, 2023 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to paragraph no.7 of the order dated 25th July, 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.3802 of 2021 and submits that the observation of the Court as contained in the said paragraph would itself make it clear that the respondent no.2 in his earlier order dated 29th January, 3 2021 passed in Misc. Case no.11 of 2020-21 had not taken into consideration that the respondent no.6 is not the daughter-in- law of the Tola/village concerning the said Centre, however, during selection process, the said aspect was not taken note of by the Aam Sabha. Under the said circumstance, the impugned notice declaring the date of Aam Sabha for selection of Anganbari Sevika of the concerned Anganbari Centre should have been confined to the petitioner and the respondent no.6 only so as to reconsider their respective candidatures as was discussed in the order dated 25th July, 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.3802 of 2021. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 25th July, 2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.3802 of 2021, the Aam Sabha should have been convened only to reconsider the appointment of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent no.6 and the impugned notice dated 6th November, 2023 should not have been issued to all the beneficiaries concerning the said Anganbari Centre to participate in the said selection is misconceived. 6. It would be evident from the observations made in the order dated 25th July, 2023 passed in the aforesaid writ petition that though the Aam Sabha was earlier convened for the purpose of selection of Anganbari Sevika, however, the objection of the petitioner as to whether the respondent no.6 is daughter-in- law of the concerned village or not was not considered by the 4 Aam Sabha. In the operative part of the said order i.e. paragraph no.8, the Court while quashing the order dated 29th January, 2021 passed by the respondent no.2 in Misc. Case no.11 of 2020-21 as well as the decision taken by Aam Sabha on 15.3.2022, directed the respondent no.2 to ensure that a fresh Aam Sabha was held and the eligibility of the petitioner and more particularly the respondent no.6 was considered. For the purpose of clarity, paragraph no.8 of the said order is quoted herein below:- “8. In view of the findings noted above therefore the entire process of selection of Anganbari Sewika of respondent no. 5 appears not to have considered the pivotal issue, which had been raised by the petitioner and which has been noted above and consequently the order dated 29.1.2021, passed by the respondent no. 2 in Misc. Case No. 11/2020-21 and the decision of the Aamsabha dated 15.3.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to ensure that a fresh Aamsabha is held and the eligibility of the candidates including the petitioner and more particularly the respondent no. 5 be considered. The process of selection of an Anganbari Sewika for Anganbari Centre Tunudag-1 should be carried out expeditiously and completed preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 7. The words used in the aforesaid para i.e. “with a direction to the respondent no.2 to ensure that a fresh Aam Sabha is held and the eligibility of the candidates including the petitioner and more particularly the respondent no.5 be considered” clearly suggest that the Deputy Commissioner- Palamau (respondent no.2) was to ensure that a fresh Aam Sabha was held and the eligibility of the candidates including the petitioner more particularly the respondent no.6 was considered. It certainly means that not only the candidatures of the petitioner and the 5 Respondent no.6 were to be considered, rather the candidatures and eligibility of all the candidates including both of them were required to be considered. Had the intention of the Court been only for consideration of candidature of the petitioner and the respondent no.6, the word “including” would not have been mentioned in the said order. The use of the word “including” certainly means that the candidatures of all beneficiaries including the petitioner and the respondent no.6 were to be considered. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the challenge made by the petitioner to the impugned notice dated 6th November, 2023 on the ground that the same should have been confined only to the petitioner and the respondent no.6 has no substance. 9. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. Sanjay/ (Rajesh Shankar, J.)