S.N.PATHAK,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned J.G. to GP-I for the State.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the appointment of Suman Kumari, respondent No. 6 who was appointed vide Memo No. 135 dated 12.11.2016 on the post of Poshan Sakhi as the same has been made due to erroneous calculation of points obtained on different parameters by the Respondents. Further prayer has been made to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Poshan Sakhi in Village-Giridharchak after adding the marks for experience as Sahiya in terms of guidelines dated 21.5.2015, issued by the respondents.
(3.) The facts as derived from the writ petition are that for appointment of Additional Aaganbadi Sevika-cum-Poshan Paramarshi, a guideline was issued by the Social Security Department om 21.5.2015. In view of the said guidelines, the petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 and others had applied for appointment on the post of Poshan Paramarshi. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she belongs to Backward Caste Category and completed her matriculation in the year 2008 with 33% marks and further intermediate in the year 2010 with 52.3% marks. Petitioner has also undergone training for Sahiya and she had also submitted experience certificate along with educational qualification certificate at the time of submission of application forms. On submission of the certificates and after verification of the same, a provisional merit list of applicants for the post of Poshan Paramarshi (Poshan Sakhi) was published on 30.1.2016, wherein the name of the petitioner appeared at SI. No. 1 and the name of respondent No. 6 appeared at SI. No. 2. From perusal of the said provisional merit list, it is crystal clear that apart from the petitioner and respondent No. 6, no other applicants were entitled for consideration and for appointment on the post of Poshan Paramarshi and considering the marks obtained by the petitioner, her name appeared at SI. No. 1 i.e. at the top of the provisional merit list. The Child Development Project Officer also issued a notification dated 30.1.2016, wherein it was informed/circulated to all that provisional merit list has been published and objections were invited against the same which could be registered till 5.2.2016. It is the further case of the petitioner that in view of the said notification no objections were filed and in view of the meeting under the Chairmanship of Deputy Commissioner, Giridih certain directions were issued regarding the selection of Poshan Sakhi, wherein it has been specifically stated that the procedure as laid down in resolution No. 2151 dated 23.9.2015 is to be followed. It has further been stated that even after the said meeting dated 5.2.2016, no decision for final selection of the Poshan Sakhi was taken. It has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that vide letter dated 1.4.2016, a guideline was issued for selection of Poshan Sakhi, which is reproduced hereinbelow:- "(a) In case the marks obtained by the applicants are same, then the person having obtained more marks in the minimum qualification i.e. matriculation examination, would be given preference. (b) In case, even after adopting the above procedure, there is a situation of tie, then the person who is having higher age shall be given preference." In view of the said guidelines, a fresh list was issued by the office Child Development Project, Sadar, Giridih and very surprisingly, the respondent No. 6 was appointment on the post of Poshan Sakhi and her name was placed at SI. No. 1, on the ground that since there was a tie, the respondent No. 6 has obtained higher marks in matriculation than the petitioner, so she was appointed. Aggrieved by the said illegal consideration and arbitrary appointment of respondent No. 6, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court.;