RANCHI, India, Sept. 12 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Aug. 12:

1. None appears for the petitioner. However, learned counsel for the respondent-State is present.

2. Since the matter is very old, this Court is proceeding to decide the case on the basis of documents available on record and hearing the counsel for the respondents.

3. This application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for declaration that the selection of Bindu Devi (who was initially made respondent No. 5, however, deleted on 02.04.2025 by virtue of non-compliance of Court's order dated 24.03.2025) as Anganbari Sevika for Chhatarpur Block, Palamau made on 10.08.2010 as being illegal and non-Est and the selection which was conducted, was against the policy dated 02.06.2006.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no illegality in selection of Bindu Devi as she was appointed in light of decision taken by the Aam Sabha and the same was done in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Government Letter No. 585 dated 02.06.2006. In support of his arguments, learned counsel relies upon the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. For brevity, the relevant paragraphs of the counter-affidavit is quoted herein below:

"6. That it is stated and submitted that after due and wide publication, application for the post of Sevika and Sahayeka for Karamdih Tola Centre of Saraidih Gram Panchayat in Chattarpur Block now Noudiha Bazar Block was invited from the candidates who were possessing requisite minimum educational qualification and fulfilling other conditions.

7. That it is stated and submitted that on 10.08.2010 Aam Sabha was held and three applications were received for the post of Sevika of concerned Anganbari Centre.

(i) Sabitri Devi

(ii) Kunti Devi

(iii) Bindu Devi. 8. That the minimum qualification for the post of Sevika was matriculate beside other criteria for the selection. Sabitri Devi was 8th class passed candidate. Both Kunti Devi and Bindu Devi were matriculate. Bindu Devi passed matriculation examination in third division whereas Kunti Devi has passed in second division.

9. That in Aam Sabha, selection was made by voting system and majority of participants in Aam Sabha selected and recommended the name of Bindu Devi whereas some participants were in favour of Kunti Devi, so, Bindu Devi was selected for the post of Sevika of Karamdih Tola Anganbari Centre. It is further stated and submitted that due to scuffle and fighting like situation amongst the participants in Aam Sabha, appointment letter could not be given to the selected candidates, however, the name of selected candidates was sent to the higher authorities for approval.

10. That the educational qualification of the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 was same and the only difference was that Petitioner has secured more marks in matriculation examination than Respondent No. 5, however, the voice of majority was in favour of Respondent No. 5 and so, the selection committee has followed rule 11 (ga) of the Government letter which says that in absence of any law, the executive order may prevail."

5. Having regard to the aforesaid fact, it transpires that there was no illegality done in selection of Bindu Devi as Aganbari Sevika in Aam Sabha held on 10.08.2010; rather the same was done in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Government Letter No. 585 dated 02.06.2006.

6. The case was listed yesterday; however since no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the case is posted for today. Even today, as stated herein above, none appears for the petitioner. Perhaps she has lost interest in this case.

7. Even otherwise, Bindu Devi was appointed in the year 2010 itself in light of decision taken by the Aam Sabha. Further, her name was deleted pursuant to non-compliance of the Court's order and the petitioner did not took any interest in recalling the said order. Accordingly, this Court does not want to interfere with the decision of the Aam Sabha and no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage.

8. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.