The Gram Sabha's decision in appointing Anganbari Sevika is final and cannot be overridden by the District Social Welfare Officer without proper grounds.

JUDGMENT :

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, A.C.J.)

I.A. No. 1143 of 2024

1. The present Interlocutory Application has been filed for condonation of delay of 86 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Having regard to the averments made in this application, we are of the view that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period of limitation.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No.1143 of 2024 is allowed and the 86 days’ delay in preferring the appeal is condoned.

5. I.A. No.1143 of 2024 stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 315 of 2023

6. The instant appeal, under clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the judgment/order dated 31.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (S) No. 516 of 2012 whereby and whereunder the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No.10 herein has been allowed by cancelling the appointment of Ankita Kumari, the appellant herein.

7. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition is required to be enumerated which reads as under:-

It is the case of the petitioner that 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 (Respondent No.10 herein) was selected as she was having the requisite qualification for appointment to the said post.

8. 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.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that one Ankita Kumari (Appellant herein) 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.

10. Thereafter, the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra cancelled the appointment of the present petitioner and issued order of appointment in favour of Respondent No. 10/appellant herein.

11. Against the aforesaid order, writ petition, being W.P.(S) No.516 of 2012, was preferred by Reena Kumari, Respondent No.10 herein, which was allowed vide order dated 31.01.2023 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 27.12.2011 by which Anikta Kumari, appellant herein, was appointed after cancelling the appointment of Reena Kumari, Respondent No.10 herein. Against the aforesaid order the instant appeal has been preferred.

12. It is evident from the factual aspect that in pursuance to the notice for engagement of Anganbari Sevika at Anganbari Centre, Huntergunj Bazar-cum-Kumhartoli, an Aam Sabha was convened in which the writ petitioner, namely, Reena Kumari, along with Ankita Kumari, the appellant herein as also others had participated for consideration of their candidature.

13. The Aam Sabha, in its meeting convened on 17.05.2010, has found the writ petitioner – Reena Kumari, Respondent No.10 herein, as successful candidate and in the majority view she has been declared to be successful candidate and based upon that she has been engaged but the Respondent No.10-the appellant herein, has made an objection before the District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra regarding engagement of the writ petitioner – Reena Kumari on the ground that the she (appellant herein) is more qualified in comparison to that of the writ petitioner, namely, Reena Kumari.

14. The District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra has cancelled the engagement of Reena Kumari and issued the engagement letter in favour of the appellant who was Respondent No.10 to the writ petition.

15. Reena Kumari has preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.516 of 2012, questioning the cancellation of her enga