Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties. By the impugned order dated 31.5.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda in Miscellaneous Petition No. 16/2011 -12 (Annexure -11) the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of 'Sevika' in the Aangan Bari Centre, Kumarkund, Bhartikita, P.S. Godda(M), District Godda had been rejected. She has also challenged the selection letter dated 26.8.2009 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Godda -Respondent No. 3 to the private respondent on her selection as 'Sevika' in the same Aangan Bari Centre.
(2.) EARLIER the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.S. No. 1121 of 2010 with the grievance that the respondent no. 4 has wrongly been appointed as 'Sevika' in the same Aangan Bari Centre though the petitioner possesses higher qualification then her and she has got all other eligibility criteria to be appointed as such. The writ petition was disposed of, however without getting into the merit of the claim by directing the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner, Godda with her representation who in turn was directed to consider the same and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within stipulated period. By the impugned order dated 31.5.2012 the Deputy Commissioner, Godda rejected the claim of the petitioner inter -alia on the specific ground that at the time of selection process conducted on 26.8.2009 the petitioner had not produced the requisite caste certificate, residence certificate as also the income certificate. The petitioner, in fact had not been able to produce any proof relating to her being resident of Kumarkund village or being lady married in the said village. In such circumstances, her claim was rejected as the respondent no. 4, Janki Devi produced all such relevant requisite certificates in support of her claim. Thereupon, the Aam Sabha and the selection committee unanimously selected Janki Devi for the post of 'Sevika'. In such circumstance, the claim of the petitioner was not found to be sustainable and has been rejected by the impugned order passed in Misc. Petition No. 16/2011 -12. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that such requisite certificates which are now annexed to the writ application vide Annexure -3, 3A and 4 appear to have been issued after the selection process.
(3.) IN such circumstances, after hearing the parties and after perusal of the impugned order, it appears that petitioner has failed to produce the requisite eligibility certificates at the time of exercise of selection before the Aam Sabha on 26.8.2009. The petitioner's claim rightly could not have been considered for appointment of 'Sevika' in village Kumarkund. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda having considered all these aspects of the matter, by a reasoned order rejected the claim of the petitioner which does not suffer from any infirmity in law as well as on facts. The writ petition, being devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed.;