REHANA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition has been preferred for getting appointment as Anganwari Sevika at Village Sherpur, District � Chatra. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance of a public advertisement, the petitioner appeared for her selection as Anganwari Sevka for the said village along with respondent No.8. As per Annexure2 to the memo of petition which is the minutes of meeting dated 05.10.2009, the Aam Sabha selected respondent No.8. However, the respondent No.8 was not appointed for some reasons, then only left out candidate is the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner should be appointed and this aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the respondents. Moreover, the learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently relied upon Annexure 7 to the memo of the writ petition and submitted that in the process of selection if any fabricated and forged documents are found or for any other reason if candidature of the selected candidate is cancelled, then the second candidate should be selected to avoid further holding of Aam Sabha for such selection and, therefore, the petitioner may be appointed as Anganwari Sevika.

(2.) COUNSEL for the respondents submitted that a detailed counter affidavit has been filed and looking to Annexur 2 to the memo of petition which is the minutes of meeting of the Aam Sabha of the concerned village held on 05.10.2009, it appears that only respondent No.8 was selected and the petitioner was never selected even as selected candidate no.2. It is true that petitioner applied for the post of Anganwari Sevka. Her candidature was also considered for the appointment, but she was never selected by the Committee as Anganwari Sevika. Merely because petitioner was No.2 was a candidate no.2, she cannot be appointed as because she was never selected as selected candidate No.2, rather she was only applicant No.2. There is a vast difference between the applicant no.2 and selected candidate no.2. In view of this submission, the petitioner was never selected by the Aam Sabha of the concerned village as Anganwari Sevika. In view of these facts, the writ petition may not be entertained by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Besides the aforesaid facts, the Deputy Commissioner has also passed an order to convene a fresh Aam Sabha meeting on 17.07.2012 but the petitioner has not applied afresh for her selection as Anganwari Sevika.