Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 6 in the writ petition who admittedly failed to appear and contest despite service of notice, has preferred this petition seeking review of the impugned judgment dated 22nd November, 2012.
(2.) The judgment dated 22nd November, 2012 is quoted in extenso herein below for better appreciation. "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent No. 6 was earlier noticed and the notices were sent by registered post as well as by personal service. It appears from vide order dated 28.4.2010, that notices upon the respondent No. 6 has been deemed to have been served. However, respondent No. 6 has not entered appearance through his counsel to contest his case. The petitioner is challenging the order dated 5.6.2007 (Annexure -7) by which the respondent No. 6, Anita Devi has been appointed on the post of Sevika in place of the petitioner Anita Kumari who was earlier appointed pursuant to the decision of the selection committee dated 21.8.2006 vide appointment letter of the same date. The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent selection process held on 8.2.2007 by which respondent No. 6 was selected for being appointed as Sevika contrary to the Rules. From the facts stated on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6, both belong to Backward Caste and in the selection committee meeting of the Aam Sabha held on 21.8.2006, the candidature of the respondent No. 6 and two other candidates along with the petitioner were also considered. The petitioner was recommended for being appointed on the post of Sevika, although, village comprised majority of Harijan, but no Harijan female candidates were available. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the guidelines issued by the Secretary, Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand contained in Memo No. 585 dated 2.6.2006 specifically paragraph -14 whereof and has submitted that the approval of such appointment is to be made by the Deputy Development Commissioner within a period of 15 days failing which the Child Development Project Officer is required to send the recommendation to the Director, Social Welfare Office, Government of Jharkhand for approval. It is further pointed out that without any rhyme or reason the appointment of the petitioner was not approved and second selection committee meeting was held without any notice to the petitioner and respondent No. 6 was recommended and being appointed vide Annexure -3 and 3/1. Thereafter, approval of the appointment of respondent No. 6 was granted by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Hazaribagh communicated through letter dated 5.6.2007 issued by the District Programme Officer, Hazaribagh to the Child Development Project Officer, Katkamsandi, Hazaribagh without any justification as the respondent No. 6 also belonged to the same backward caste and her candidature was also considered in the first selection process, but the petitioner was recommended and provisionally appointed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is having qualification of Intermediate in Arts while respondent No. 6 is Matriculate, therefore, the impugned appointment is contrary to the Rules and is fit to be set aside. The respondents -State has appeared and filed their counter affidavit. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that village in question was comprised of villagers, the majority of which belong to Harijan community. Since in the first selection process, no Scheduled Caste female candidates were available, therefore, the selection process was reconvened and thereafter, respondent No. 6 was recommended and appointed and her appointment has also been approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner as per the Rules. The counsel for the respondents has suggested on the basis of the averment made in the counter affidavit that the petitioner is a lady belonging to rich family while respondent No. 6 comes from low income group that is why she had been recommended. However, learned counsel for the respondents is not able to show any basis or documents such as the income certificates etc. either of the two candidates i.e. the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 to substantiate the aforesaid contention that the petitioner belongs to rich family and respondent No. 6 comes from poor family. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on records. From perusal of Annexure -1, it appears that out of four candidates belonging to the same backward caste in which candidature of respondent No. 6 was also considered, the petitioner was recommended for appointment as Sevika and was provisionally appointed also. Further, although the ground has been made that since Scheduled Caste candidates were not available in the first selection process, therefore, the selection committee was reconvened, but in the second exercise also the candidates, who were considered belonged to Backward Caste including the respondent No. 6 as that of the petitioner. The aforesaid ground, therefore, is not made out to supersede or annul the first selection process and appointment of the petitioner made thereupon. Moreover, no documents have been brought on record to show that the petitioner is from rich family and the respondent No. 6 belonged to otherwise poor family. In the circumstances, it appears that the respondents have committed illegality and arbitrariness in appointing the respondent No. 6 in place of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 5.6.2007. The subsequent selection process also appears to be without any justification and as such, the approval granted to the appointment of the respondent No. 6 therefore, cannot be sustained in law. The appointment of the respondent No. 6 and approval of her appointment vide order dated 5.6.2007 is wholly illegal and arbitrary and accordingly, quashed. The respondent would therefore proceed to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of recommendation by which the provisional appointment was made in her favour. Accordingly, let this exercise be completed within a period of four weeks after the receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms."
(3.) The ground for seeking review urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the writ petitioner was also a candidate, who participated in the second Aam Sabha held on 8th February, 2007, but did not challenge holding of second Aam Sabha and after selection and approval of the review petitioner sought to question her appointment in the writ petition. The writ petitioner's claim should not have been entertained on that count.;