- (1.) Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) The writ petitioner is in appeal against the judgment dated 27.11.2013 passed in W.P.S. No. 427 of 2013 which dismissed his writ petition. The writ petition was preferred initially with a prayer to command the Respondents to approve her appointment as an Aanganwari Sevika on her selection on 1.9.2012 by the Aam Sabha for the centre Molnakitta under Godda Gramin Child Development Project in the district of Godda. However, during the pendency of the writ petition prayer of the petitioner to challenge a letter dated 22.1.2013 for initiation of a fresh selection process for appointment of Aanganwari Sevika by the District Social Welfare Officer, Godda, through I.A. No. 548 of 2013 was allowed observing " in the meanwhile, any selection of Anganbari Sewika for the centre in question, shall be subject to the result of the writ petition". Thereafter, a fresh selection process was concluded in the appointment of one Nisha Devi as Sevika on 8.4.2013. Petitioner's prayer to challenge the said appointment letter dated 8.4.2013 through I.A. No. 3869 of 2013 was allowed later on as well, as would appear from the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge, however did not find any substantial irregularities in the decision by which the proceedings of earlier Aam Sabha was cancelled. At the same time it was also held that the petitioner had been unable to indicate any irregularities in selection of said Nisha Devi. The content of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Respondents were also quoted in the impugned judgment where it was indicated that petitioner is not the resident of Molnakitta rather she is a resident of Mohalla Saketpuri, Godda where her name finds place in the voter list. The name of Nisha Devi was mentioned in the voter list of village Molnakitta Harijan Tola in respect of which she has also filed residential certificate.
(3.) The Appellant has assailed the impugned judgment inter-alia on the grounds that after the initiation of the process of selection of Sevika earlier through a Public Notice dated 11.8.2012(Annexure-1 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Godda, petitioner was selected by the Aam Sabha as well on 1.9.2012 vide provisional appointment letter at Annexure-5 of the same date issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Godda Gramin. However, without issuance of any notice or show cause upon her, by a Public Notice dated 22.1.2013 a fresh exercise of selection of Aanganbari Sevika has been carried out and the centre Molnakitta has been arbitrarily changed to Molnakitta Harijan Tola. Therefore, the subsequent selection and appointment of Nisha Devi for the Centre Molnakitta Harijan Tola without cancellation of the petitioner's appointment is also bad in law. The Appellant further contended that the name of the Aanganbari Centre could not have been arbitrarily changed after an exercise of selection of a Sevika had been carried out for the centre Molnakitta while the Sundarmara Harijan Tola under the said Godda Gramin Child Development Project had also been thrown open for selection of Aanganbari Sevika. It is her further contention that though the prayer to challenge the appointment of Nisha Devi through I.A. No. 3869 of 2013 was allowed by the same impugned judgment but the learned Single Judge failed to issue notice upon the private respondent before deciding the writ petition itself on merits. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and remanded for reconsideration after hearing the parties including the newly appointed Aanganbari Sevika.;