Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that by order dated 20th June, 2013 Annexure -4 issued by the District Programme Officer, Lohardaga -respondent -4, the C.D.P.O. (Child Development Programme Officer), Kisko, Lohardaga has been informed that the Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga has rejected the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as Aganbari Sewika for the centre Nini. According to the petitioner, in the meeting held on 26th February, 2013 in the Aam Sabha, cases of several candidates were considered for selection to the post of Sewika and the Aam Sabha unanimously recommended the proposal for appointment of the petitioner as she was found to be belonging to the Schedule Tribe category, a daughter -in -law married in the said village and was found physically and mentally in good health and she was found to be having qualification of Intermediate in Arts, Annexure 2 series contain her Graduation certificate. Her name is also shown at serial No. 334 of the voter list under Kisko P.S., District -Lohardaga. The Block Development Officer, Kisko had also issued caste certificate in favour of the petitioner showing her of Lohra caste belonging to village -Nini. The Circle Officer, Lohardaga has also issued a certificate of residence for the purposes of employment vide Annexure -2/3 dated 14th November, 2011 showing the petitioner as resident of village -Nini P.S. -Kisko. In the wake of aforesaid claim of the petitioner, her case has been rejected apparently by the respondents as borne out from the statement made 'in the counter affidavit that complaint was made by certain villagers in the matter of selection of Sewika in the said centre in the meeting held on 26th February, 2013. The said report is Annexure -A. From perusal of Annexure -C and Annexure -D dated 10th May, 2013 and 8th May, 2013 addressed respectively to the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga by the C.D.P.O., Kisko and by the Female Supervisor to the C.D.P.O., Kisko, it appears that the petitioner was present in the village at the time of inspection by the C.D.P.O. The Female Supervisor has also reported that some villagers alleged that the petitioner stays at Dhanbad, while other villagers have stated that the petitioner earlier used to stay at Dhanbad but after her recommendation she has been staying at Nini village. Based upon these representations, the Deputy Commissioner has rejected the petitioner's proposal for appointment as Sevika which has been conveyed through the impugned letter dated 20th June, 2013 Annexure -4 by the District Social Welfare Officer, Lohardaga. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the guidelines of the scheme dated 2nd June, 2006 (Annexure -3) issued by the Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand in the matter of appointment of Aganbari Sewika/Sahayika have not been followed. It is submitted that the decision is to be taken by the Deputy Development Commissioner within a period of 15 days from the recommendation of Aam Sabha and on failing to do, the recommendation has to be forwarded to the Director, Social Welfare, Jharkhand for taking a decision.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4707 of 2007 dated 22nd November, 2012 in support of his contention that violation of the guidelines have been deprecated in the said case by the Hon'ble Court as well.;