- (1.) Though respondent no. 7 has entered appearance through learned counsel Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, however, Mr. Jha has submitted that his client, respondent no. 7 has taken away the brief and obtained no objection on 20.06.2013. It appears that private respondent has not entered appearance through any other counsel thereafter nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. Therefore, the case is being heard and decided after hearing the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
(2.) It is evident from Annexure-2, proceeding of the Aam Sabha held on 21.01.2013 for the selection of Aaganbari Sevika for the centre Bhangiya Pahari, Mohanpur Block, District-Deoghar pursuant to notice to hold Aam Sabha dated 02.01.2013, Annexure-1 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Mohanpur, Deoghar, respondent no. 6 that Aam Sabha was held in the presence of the respondent no. 6 as its Chairman and other representatives as required under the circular dated 02.06.2006 bearing memo no. 585, Annexure-6 of the Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department i.e. Female Supervisor, Mukhiya, Headmaster, member of panchayat samiti, ANM, Up Mukhiya along with 105 villagers, which considered the rival claim of the petitioner and the private respondent. Both of them belong to the Scheduled Caste category. Aam Sabha recommended the selection of the petitioner as she was having higher qualification of Intermediate with 1st Division while private respondent had qualification of matric pass. It also considered that private respondent was suffering from low vision in both eyes while the petitioner was suffering from physical disability in her left hand. It recommended the petitioner for selection unanimously where after the provisional selection letter was also issued in her favour by the respondent no. 6 dated 21.01.2013 itself (Annexure-3). It appears that on complaint made by the private respondent, the respondent no. 4, Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar asked both the petitioner and the private respondent to appear through letter no. 259 dated 25.04.2013 addressed to the respondent no. 6, Child Development Project Officer, Mohanpur, Deoghar. Thereafter he recommended the selection of the private respondent as Sevika of the said centre vide letter no. 322 dated 01.06.2013, Annexure-5 impugned in the present writ petition.
(3.) In the aforesaid background facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of the circular dated 02.06.2006, Annexure-6 specifically Clause- 7(Ka), Clause -11(Ga) and Clause-14 in support of his submission that petitioner's selection in the Scheduled Caste category on having higher qualification of Intermediate was fully justified. No relaxation was required in educational qualification amongst participating candidates by the Deputy Commissioner/Deputy Development Commissioner as a suitable candidate having higher qualification i.e. petitioner was already there. Deputy Development Commissioner, respondent no. 4 also never found any reason to remand the matter to Aam Sabha for fresh selection as the selection of the petitioner was not suffering from any irregularity or lack of qualification. However, without any reason he has refused to approve the selection of the petitioner while recommending appointment of the private respondent. In such circumstances, a valuable right of being appointed has been taken away from the petitioner without any valid reason.;