- (1.) Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. Despite service of notice on the private respondent and Vakalatnama having been filed on her behalf, no one appears today to represent her.
(2.) This appellant was though a party in the writ petition but not noticed where order of termination of the writ petitioner from the post of Anganbadi Sevika dated 09.04.2008, passed by the Child Development Project Officer, Sahibganj and the appellate order dated 04.05.2009, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibjang were under challenge.
(3.) Writ petitioner was selected as Anganbadi Sevika and appointed as such w.e.f. 29.06.2007. It is evident from the records that it was on the complaint of the present appellant, who was also a candidate for the same post, inquiry was held leading to the termination of the appointment of the writ petitioner. Writ petitioner being aggrieved by the order of termination also exercised the remedy of appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj being R.M.P. No. 2/08-09. It was after due hearing of the writ petitioner, the Member, Screening Committee and others, the order of termination of the writ petitioner was upheld while affirming the appointment of the present appellant on the post of Anganbadi Sevika for the centre of Badi Kodarjnna, East Mahaldaar Tola, Sahibganj Block. It is also evident from the records that in terms of resolution dated 23.03.2007 of the Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development, Government of Jharkhand, a Screening Committee was constituted, comprising of Block Development Officer, Sahibganj, Sub Divisional Officer, Sahibganj, the representative of the Member of Parliament and also the representative of the local Member of Legislative Assembly. This report, part of letter No. 164 dated 11.02.2008 (Annexure-2), found the claim of this appellant superior compared to the writ petitioner. In the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner also took note of the comparative merit of the two candidates and observed that two members in the family of writ petitioner were in Government Service while, on the other hand, the husband of the present appellant was working as a labourer and was a landless person. The name of this appellant was also listed in the below poverty line list at serial No. 1133 and she was the holder of a Red Card. As per the report of the Screening Committee, the appellant was matric pass while the writ petitioner had the qualification of Madhyama. It was further observed by the Deputy Commissioner that the documents relating to land showed that the writ petitioner had sufficient source of livelihood with landed property. Based on these considerations and after hearing the writ petitioner as well as other parties, the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 04.05.2009 upheld the termination of the writ petitioner and affirmed the appointment of the present appellant. In this background, the writ petition was decided without noticing the present appellant, who was a candidate to the same post and aggrieved due to her non-selection. In fact, the proceedings had been initiated on her complaint.;