- (1.) Learned counsel for the respondent - State is present. Petitioners herein have sought approval of their selection as Aanganbari Sevika / Sahayika on the basis of their selection by the Aam Sabha and communication contained in letter dated 4.10.2006 issued by the respondent no.8, Smt. Anita, then Child Development Project Officer(C.D.P.O) , Raneshwar, Dumka addressed to District Programme Officer, Dumka,(Annexure -6).
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent by referring to para 10 of the counter affidavit submitted that petitioners' selection are in teeth of the Government Circular dated 8.6.2006 as the Aam Sabha was called within 5 days of the notice, though 15 days time was required. Presence of the Official representatives in the quorum of Aam Sabha was also not complete. Despite nomination of the Block Development Officer by the Deputy Commissioner vide letter no. 556 dated 1.7.2006, the then C.D.P.O ignored it and concluded the proceeding dated 2.9.2006. Presence of 30 mothers, which is must was also lacking in the said Aam Sabha. Most of the selected candidates do not come from the target community and amongst beneficiaries. The selection process suffered from several irregularities and illegalities and was enquired into by the Block Development Officer, Raneshwar, who found the allegations to be correct. The report alleged taking of bribe against the then C.D.P.O, Raneshwar. From perusal of the proceeding of the meeting, it is evident that more than one Aam Sabha was conducted by the C.D.P.O, Raneshwar at the same time and on the same date in different places, which makes the entire exercise suspicious and act of forgery. In view of such large scale allegations found to be established during course of enquiry, the select list submitted by the then C.D.P.O, Smt. Anita was not approved and process for fresh selection after full publication of the programme in the newspaper and in the area was adopted vide Annexure -F.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent - State submits that these petitioners were illegally benefited in the exercise conducted by the said C.D.P.O, Raneshwar. Specific statements in respect of the petitioners have also been made in para 13 where in it is stated that selection of petitioners Madira Mukherjee, Mumtaz Bibi and Mrs. Gayatri Saha was not proper. Petitioner, Madira Mukherjee is the resident of village Barmasia of Shikaripara Block being w/o Upeesh Mandal of the same village and she has been selected for centre of Pariharpur of Raneshwar Block. She has made forgery in the certificate of income. Her certificate relating to education appears to be forged and fabricated. In the case of petitioner, Mumtaz Bibi, it was found that the Gram Sabha was held within 7 days though the mandatory 15 days notice was required for convening the Gram Sabha. Quorum was not complete as representative of the Deputy Commissioner was not present. She is the resident of village Hakikatpur where she is already working as Sahayika and she has been selected illegally for the post of Sevika of another village Patharachal of Kuirdaha Panchayat. The third petitioner, Gayatri Saha is the resident of village Kadma where as she has been selected for another village Pathardaha. In her selection also the quorum was not complete as the Official representative of Deputy Commissioner was not present. She is the member of Backward community, while the village is dominated by Schedule Tribe Santhal. Therefore, selection of all these petitioners are wholly illegal and cannot have any sanctity in the eye of law.;