Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In this writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for setting aside the selection of the respondent no. 7 by the Aamsabha convened on 27.08.2009 for the post of Anganbari Sevika in the newly created Anganbari Centre, Achala-2, Dumaria Tola in the district of Garhwa and further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Sevika, since she fulfills all necessary requirements like educational qualification, Caste and Residential certificate.
(2.) The facts in brief, are that being the resident, the petitioner applied for the post of Anganbari Sevika in the Anganbari Centre, Achala-2, Dumaria Tola having the qualification of B.A. After receipt of the applications, an Aamsabha was held on 27.08.2009 for selection of Sevika and Sahayika. In the said Aamsabha, the respondent no. 7 was chosen over the petitioner. Being dejected, the petitioner vide objection to the selection of the respondent no. 7, on two grounds, firstly, there was lack of quoram in the Aamsabha and secondly, the certificate obtained by the respondent no. 7 has been obtained by fraud from Madarsa Islamia, Ranchi in the year 2009. The petitioner also made a complaint to the respondents by way of representation, praying for setting aside the selection of the Aamsabha and for initiation of fresh process for selection. It has further been averred that in pursuance to the complaint, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, after conducting the enquiry, submitted a report dated 14.10.2009, endorsing therein, that there was lack of quoram and for fresh selection. It has further been averred that inspite of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the selection of the respondent no. 7 was confirmed on the post of Sevika and the representation of the petitioner was rejected. Finally, the petitioner also submitted representations to the respondent nos. 3 to 6, which fell on the deaf ears. Left with no alternative, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of her grievances.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the action of the respondents in selecting the respondent no. 7 on the post of Anganbari Sevika on the face of the enquiry report, conducted by an I.A.S. Officer, is neither justified nor legally tenable. Learned counsel further submits that the respondents ought to have verified the certificates produced by the respondent no. 7 before confirming the selection. Learned counsel has further referred to Annexure-8 of the reply to the counter affidavit, wherein, the Enquiry has been conducted by one Ashok Kumar Sharma, more particularly, he has referred to paragraph 4 of the said report, which has been submitted on 17.07.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the quoram was not complete, as would be evident from the enquiry conducted by the S.D.O., Garhwa, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is in clear breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.;