KAILASH PRASAD DEO,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant and State on the prayer for condonation of delay of 16 days in preferring the instant Memo of Appeal through I.A. No. 8162 of 2018. We have also entertained the argument on merits of the challenge made by the appellant to the impugned judgment dated 10th July, 2018 rendered in W.P.(S) No. 1196 of 2018 by learned Single Judge.
(2.) The factual exposition as delineated in the writ petition and succinctly recorded in the impugned judgment shows that writ petitioner did not enclose the residential certificate and caste certificate along with her application for consideration for appointment as Aanganbari Sewika, for Koymara Aganwari Center under Giridih District by the cut-off date for making such application. Respondent no. 5 was found eligible by the Aam Sabha and was provisionally selected vide Memo no. 01 dated 12th May, 2017. The District Welfare Officer on the representation made by the petitioner convened a fresh Aam Sabha on the basis of an enquiry report dated 22nd August, 2017 (Annexure-9) which is under the pen and signature of the District Welfare Officer, Giridih. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih on representation of respondent no. 5 enquired the matter and on being satisfied that respondent no. 5 was rightly appointed, directed for her continuance on the said post. Being aggrieved, petitioner approached the Writ Court. Learned Single Judge upon consideration of the factual matrix of the case opined as follows: " 6. The arguments advanced by AC to learned SC-IV finds strength from the enquiry report where finding has been given regarding appointment of respondent no. 5 and it has been said that respondent no. 5 was rightly appointed and petitioner was not having requisite qualification as she did not possess residential and caste certificate at the time of selection process. It has been further argued by learned counsel that the Deputy Commissioner was fully empowered for issuance of directions to the respondents to appoint respondent no. 5 to the post of Aanganbari Sewika. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of the parties this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of appointment of respondent no. 5. No interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition stands dismissed."
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in order to assail the findings, has urged that once the Aam Sabha was cancelled and in reconvened Aam Sabha, petitioner was able to produce residential certificate and caste certificate, rejection of her candidature despite having higher qualification was not proper.;