PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia, prayed for cancellation the selection and appointment of respondent nos. 6 and 7 as Sevika and Sahayika respectively for Anganbari Centre at Bankati village and to select and appoint petitioner nos. 1 and 2 on the respective posts.
(2.) The factual exposition, as has been delineated in the writ application, is that on 09.09.2007 in the evening, the respondent-C.D.P.O came to village Bankati and told few persons to submit their certificates for appointment on the post of Sevika and Sahayika, on which, some persons deposited their certificates. Later on, it was known to petitioners that respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been selected and appointed on the post of Sevika and Sahayika, against which, the petitioners objected by submitting representations before the respondents-authorities. It has been averred that basing on such complaint, the B.D.O, Ichagarh Block made table enquiry report and sent it to the respondent-C.D.P.O, Seraikella, who deviating the issue submitted that petitioner no. 1 was not 18 years of age on 09.09.2007 , i.e. on the date of submission of application. It has further been submitted that the villagers also submitted representation stating that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are not the inhabitants of that village and further no Aam Sabha was held for their selection, but, it did not evoke any response.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that appointment of respondent nos. 6 and 7 have been done without holding Aam Sabha de hors the guidelines meant for appointment of Anganbari Sevika/Sahayika. It has further been submitted that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are not the inhabitants of village Bankati and they are from different village of Ichagarh block; but ignoring this fact and relevant guidelines, the respondent-authority selected them. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners and even villagers made several representations bringing it to the knowledge of the authorities concerned regarding arbitrariness and favourtism done in selection of anganbari sevika and sahayika but it did not evoke any response. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a decision rendered in the case of Renu Devi Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors as reported in 2008 (3) JCR 506(Jhr).;