- (1.) PETITIONER in this writ application, has challenged the order dated 13.12.2008 (Annexure -4), whereby the respondent no. 5 has been appointed as Aanganwari Sewika in the school situated in the village Narodih Centre No. 2 in the district of Jamtara.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to the order dated 12.12.2007 passed in the earlier writ application vide W.P.(S) No. 5990 of 2007 filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5, the Child Development Project Officer, Narayanpur (respondent no. 4) had conducted an inquiry and had submitted his report of inquiry also. As would be evident from a bare perusal of the inquiry report that despite the fact that on enquiry, it was confirmed by the principal of the school, namely Kirtichandra Balika Uchcha Vidyala, Jharia, that the educational certificate produced by the respondent no. 5 were in fact forged certificates, yet the respondent no. 4 did not take the above facts into consideration and furthermore, the Inquiry Officer did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner to be heard despite the fact that the petitioner was also one of the candidates who had submitted her candidature for her appointment to the post of Aanganwari Sewika. A counter -affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 4, explaining therein that pursuant to the order passed by this court in the earlier writ petition, which was filed by the respondent no. 5 Hasina Khatoon, an inquiry was conducted into the selection of Aanganwari Sewika made by the Aam Sabha and after considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, respondent no. 5 was selected for the post. It is also stated that although, the respondent no. 5 was selected and appointed by the respondent no. 2 but it was also observed in the order that if other parties have any problem or paper to show that their claim is higher than the claim of the respondent no. 5, they may represent within 10 days.
(3.) FROM the statements submitted on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that a certificate was issued by the principal of the school stating therein that the education certificates produced by the respondent no. 5, were in fact not correct and genuine. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs that this aspect of the matter has not been considered at all by the concerned authority while conducting the inquiry on the earlier representation filed by the respondent no. 5.;