The Aam Sabha has the authority to recommend the appointment of Anganbari Sevika, and the minimum qualification for the appointment is Intermediate.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 27.12.2011, issued by the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, whereby services of the petitioner has been dismissed and respondent No. 10 has been appointed in her place.

3. As per the factual matrix, on the direction of Child Development Project Officer, an Aam Sabha was held for appointment of Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre, Huntergunj Bazar-cum-Kumhartoli and after the proceedings of the Aam Sabha, Smt. Reena Kumari (petitioner herein) was selected as she was having the requisite qualification for appointment to the said post. Thereafter, provisional appointment letter was issued to the petitioner and her case was recommended by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra as she was the fittest candidate being selected by the Aam Sabha and her appointment was made in accordance with law. It is the case of the petitioner that one Ankita Kumari (respondent No. 10) having the educational qualification of B.A. approached the respondent-authorities claiming that she has the highest qualification amongst the candidates appeared before Aam Sabha and as such, she should be selected and appointed to the post of Anganbari Sevika, Anganbari Centre, Huntergunj Bazar-cum-Kumhartoli and the petitioner was illegally appointed. Thereafter, the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra on the direction of the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra, cancelled the appointment of the present petitioner and issued order of appointment in favour of respondent No. 10.

Being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No. 10 and cancellation of her appointment, the petitioner has knocked the door of this Court

4. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vociferously argues that petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganbari Sevika as per the rules. Learned counsel submits that as per the terms and conditions of appointment of Anganbari Sevika, the petitioner was fulfilling the requisite qualification. Learned counsel further submits that an Aam Sabha was held by the Village Level Committee and thereafter, by the majority of votes, the petitioner was selected and there is no illegality or infirmity in the appointment of petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that name of respondent No. 10 was never recommended by the Aam Sabha and merely because she was having the highest educational qualification i.e. Graduation, she cannot be selected as an Anganbari Sevika on the recommendation of Deputy Development Commissioner. Learned counsel placing reliance on the order of this Court passed in case of Kanchan Devi vs. State of Jharkhand (L.P.A. No. 393 of 2013), submits that considering the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Sharda Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2001 (1) JLJR 237, the appointment of petitioner was fully justified and there was no occasion to cancel her appointment and appointment of respondent No. 10 merely on the ground that she was having the higher qualification amongst the candidate i.e. B.A. is not tenable in the eyes of law since Intermediate was the only required qualification for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika and as the petitioner was fulfilling the said requisite qualification, there was no illegality in her appointment, since she was selected by the Aam Sabha.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State by vehemently opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the directions issued by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Chatra, the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra cancelled the appointment of petitioner as she was not having the highest qualification. Learned counsel submits that there is no illegality in cancelling the appointment of petitioner as admittedly she was not having the highest qualification and as respondent No. 1