S.N.PATHAK, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the appointment letter issued in the name of Babita Kumari (respondent No. 7), who has been illegally and arbitrarily appointed to the post of Anganbari Sevika-cum-Poshan Paramarshi (Nutrition Consultant) for the Anganbari Centre, Mairanwatand, Dhanbad. Further prayer has been made to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganbari Sevika-cum-Poshan Paramarshi (Nutrition Consultant) for the Anganbari Centre, Mairanwatand, Dhanbad.
(3.) The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. In view of Integrated Child Development Project Scheme (for short "ICDS"), a centrally sponsored scheme floated by the Union of India for the development of women and child of the rural areas, the provision of appointment of Anganbari Sevika-cum-Poshan Paramarshi (Nutrition Consultant) as well as Sahayika for the Anganbari Centre, Mairanwatand, Dhanbad for proper implementation of the said ICDS is being carried out by the Government. In view of the aforesaid guidelines, notices were issued inviting applications for appointment of Aanganbari Sevika for the Aanganbari Centre at Mairanwatand, Dhanbad. In terms of the aforesaid notice, an Aam Sabha was called on 23.12.2015 headed by the competent authority of Dhanbad, wherein all the concerned persons were present. It is the case of the petitioner that as she fulfilled the requisite qualifications, she applied in the prescribed format for the same along with other candidates, who also fulfilled the requisite qualifications. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though she fulfilled the requisite qualification and as per the rules and guidelines, has obtained more marks than the respondent No. 7, who has been selected for the post of Aanganbari Sevika, her case was not considered by the respondents. The respondent-authorities have illegally and arbitrarily appointed one Babita Kumari (respondent No. 7) in the instant case on the ground that her age is more than petitioner and she fulfills the requisite qualification as matriculation is the minimum qualification required for appointment to the post of Aanganbari Sevika. As the case of the petitioner was not considered, she moved before the respondent-authorities by preferring representation (Annexure-3) but the same was not considered and hence, she was constrained to move before this Hon'ble Court by filing the instant writ application for redressal of her grievances.;