IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P.B. BAJANTHRI, RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, JJ.
Bibha Kumari @ Vibha Kumari Wife of Sri Balchand Das, D/o Sri Nagina – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar through Addl. Chief Secretary, Social Welfare Department Govt. Bihar, Patna – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8633 of 2020
Decided on : 27-04-2022
Appointment - Competent Authority - Guidelines dated 27.05.2019 - [Clause 9] - The court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not the competent authority to issue the order of appointment to the post of Anganwari Sevika as per the Guidelines dated 27.05.2019. The appointment made in contravention of statutory provisions is void ab initio.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and the 10th respondent were candidates for the post of Anganwari Sevika. The petitioner challenged the appointment of the 10th respondent, claiming that the appointing authority was not competent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not the competent authority to issue the appointment order, and the appointment made in contravention of statutory provisions is void ab initio.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Sub-Divisional Officer was the competent authority to issue the appointment order to the post of Anganwari Sevika.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appointment made in contravention of statutory provisions is void ab initio, and the Sub-Divisional Officer was not the competent authority as per the Guidelines dated 27.05.2019.
Final Decision: The Sub-Divisional Officer's communication and the C.D.P.O. order were set aside, and the matter was referred to a third member for a decision.
JUDGMENT :
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Despite giving opportunity to the 10th respondent – Radha Kumari. 10th respondent has not appeared. On 29.03.2022 following order was passed:
None appears on behalf of respondent no. 10.
In order to give one more opportunity, re-list this matter on 26.04.2022.
On the aforesaid date, if there is no representation on behalf of respondent no. 10, in that event respondent no. 10 would be heard ex-parte.”
3. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief/reliefs:
(ii) For quashing the order bearing Memo No. 103 dated 20.03.2020 passed by C.D.P.O., Khizarsarai by which rejected the application of the petitioner filed against selection of the respondent No. 10.
(iii) For issue direction to respondent to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Aganwari Sevika on the ground petitioner having better qualification to the respondent No. 10 and she is at serial No. 1 whereas respondent no. 9 at Serial No. 2 of the merit list.
(iv) For further give other legal consequential benefit to the petitioner.”
4. Petitioner and 10th respondent – Radha Kumari were candidate for recruitment to the post of Anganwari Sevika in the Aganwari Centre no. 188, Sarbahada Grampanchayat, Ward No. 8. Selecting authority prepared select list in which petitioner and 10th respondent are at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. They have secured aggregate percentage of marks i.e 64.03 and 51. The 10th respondent was selected for the post of Anganwari Sevika by the Aam Sabha, thereafter, order of appointment was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer -5th respondent on 15.02.2020. Petitioner approached C.D.P.O. and petitioner’s application was rejected on 20.03.2020.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointing authority in respect of Anganwari Sevika in terms of Clause 9 of the Guidelines dated 27.05.2019 is the Mahila Supervisor, therefore, the Sub Divisional Officer – respondent No. 5 is not the competent authority. Therefore, appointing 10th respondent is without authority of law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State resisted the contention and submitted that the 8th respondent Mahila Supervisor has initiated the notings in respect of order of appointment. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer as well as C.D.P.O.
7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
8. Crux of the matter in the present petition is whether Sub-Divisional Officer -5th respondent is competent authority to issue order of appointment to the post of Anganwari Sevika or not?
9. Clause 9 of the Guidelines dated 27.05.2019 reads as under:
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.