Aparesh Kumar Singh,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and the Opposite parties.
(2.) The judgment, for which review is sought, is quoted hereunder: "03/24.04.2014 Heard counsel for the parties. The respondent no.5 was noticed earlier and service of notice has been found to be complete as the said respondents has herself signed on the same in presence of her husband on 10.9.2012 as per the service report. However, no one has entered appearance on her behalf, therefore, the matter is being heard in the presence of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondent-State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter no. 488/A dated 9.5.2012 issued by the respondent no.4, District Social Welfare Officer, Jamtara (Annexure-10) where under the respondent no.5 namely Mrs. Rani Kumari Soren was selected as Aangan Bari Sevika for the center Khorasaro, Karmatand block, District Jamtara. The petitioner incidentally was under age in the first Aam Sabha held on 15.2.2010 for selection of Aangan Bari Sevika for the said center. It however appears that another Aam Sabha was convened on 22.7.2011 in which the petitioner's case was not considered as she was under age on the date when the first Aam Sabha meeting was held on 15.2.2010 i.e. 17 years 7 months and 12 days though obviously she must have become major by the time the second Aam Sabha was held. From perusal of the minutes of the meeting convened by the committee constituted for the purposes of hearing grievances of the aggrieved candidates seeking appointment to the post of Aangan Bari Sevika/Sahaika, it is apparent that the respondent no.5 had complained before the Deputy Commissioner on 15.2.2011 that the Deputy Development Commissioner had cancelled her selection earlier. The minutes of the meeting held on 12.3.2011 contained in memo no. 126 dated 13.4.2011 (Annexure B to the counter affidavit) in respect of the said Anganbari Center indicates that on account of the said reasons as also on appearance of the other two candidates including the petitioner, a fresh Aam Sabha was directed to be convened for selection of Aangan Bari Sevika for the said Center. The second exercise obviously was undertaken thereafter on 22.7.2011 in which the Aam Sabha seem to have refused to consider the petitioner's case as she was under age when the first Aam Sabha was held. Such non consideration of the petitioner's case was not proper when a fresh Aam Sabha was being held upon cancellation of the same on findings of irregularity by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamtara vide Annexure-6 dated 4.9.2010 in the selection of the respondent no.5 as Aangan Bari Sevika for the said Center. It further appears that while the petitioner was Intermediate, the selected candidate, Respondent no.5 was found to have not passed in Hindi and Maths in the Matriculation exam of 2009. The other candidate Anjali Besra was in fact found to be Matric Fail. Therefore, the selection exercise appears to be vitiated for non consideration of the case of the eligible candidate i.e. petitioner. Therefore, any approval of such selection of respondent no.5 also has been rendered vitiated. The impugned action of the respondents are therefore, arbitrary and denies the benefit of equal opportunity for appointment to the post like Aangan Bari Sevika in the respondent- State to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 9.5.2012, therefore, deserves to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed. In the circumstance, the respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara is directed to hold fresh Aam Sabha for selection of Aangan Bari Sevika for the center Khorasaro, Karmatand block within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid manner."
(3.) From perusal of the said judgment three things are obvious; (i) that the present review petitioner, who was respondent no.5, did not appear after valid service of notice when the writ petition was decided. (ii) the attendant facts were taken note including the letter dated 13.4.2011 (from Annexure B to the counter affidavit), which was referred to by the review petitioner in the minutes of the Aam Sabha held on 22.7.2011 for selection of Anganbari Sevika. Aam Sabha had refused to consider the case of the writ petitioner, who was major by that date only on the ground that she was minor on the date of previsions Aam Sabha i.e. On 15.2.2010 (iii) This Court found that the selection of respondent-review petitioner herein was done in the face of non-consideration of case of other candidates like the writ petitioner by denying the benefit of equal opportunity to such post. Taking into account all these facts by the judgment impugned the Deputy Commissioner, Jamtara was directed to hold an Aam Sabha for selection of Anganbari Sevika for the Centre Khorasaro, Karmatand Block, district Jamtara. The impugned order, therefore, does not suffer on any error apparent from the face of record and the review petitioner, who admittedly did not appear despite service of valid notice, has no ground to seek review that she was not heard at the time of decision and relevant facts were not noticed by the Court.;