Bibi Salamun v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7783 of 2014 =========================================================== Bibi Salamun Wife of Md. Shamshad Alam Resident of village- Babura, P .OMakaita, P.S- Dhoraiya, District- Banka. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary welfare Department Bihar, Patna.

2. Director, I.C.D.S., Directorate, Bihar, Patna.

3. Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur

4. District Magistrate, Banka.

5. Child Development Project Officer, Dhoraiya, District- Banka.

6. Sub- Divisional Officer, Banka, District- Banka.

7. Circle Officer, Dhoraiya, District- Banka.

8. Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Dhoraiya, District Banka.

9. District Programme Officer, Banka.

10. Anjuman Ara Wife of Md. Reyazuddin Resident of Village- Babura, P.OMakaita, P.S- Dhoraiya, District- Banka .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durga Nand Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prerna Anand, A.C to G.P-18 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-08-2017 Heard Mr. Durga Nand Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Prerna Anand, the learned counsel for the respondents.

2.

The petitioner in this writ petition prays for quashing of the order dated 01.03.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Banka, in Appeal no. 197 of 2012-13 by which the selection of the petitioner (Bibi Salamun) is cancelled and Anjuman Ara (respondent no. 10) is directed to be selected for the post of Aanganbari Sevika. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the order dated 06.03.2014

2/5 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur, in Appeal no. 153 of 2013-14 by which the Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner confirming the order of the District Magistrate, Banka passed in Appeal no. 197 of 2012-13.

3.

Mr. Durga Nand Jha, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the petitioner and respondent no. 10 are the applicants for selection of Aanganbari Sevika of Aanganbari Centre no. 215 situated in Makaita Babura Gram Panchayat. The Anjuman Ara (respondent no. 10) got 63.90 marks whereas the petitioner got 61.75 marks, but Anjuman Ara was not selected on the ground that she was working as Aasha worker in the Primary Health Department, and the petitioner was selected. It is further submitted that the Collector, Banka illegally cancelled the selection of the petitioner on the ground that Anjuman Ara had resigned from the post of Aasha worker on 29.01.2011 and the selection for the post of Aanganbari Sevika was made on 31.01.2011.

It is further submitted that the petitioner has brought the facts in the supplementary affidavit that Anjuman Ara, even after her resignation, continued to work as Aasha worker. She is not entitled to be selected as she was holding the post of Aasha worker in the Primary Health Centre and she can be treated as government servant.

3/5 provision 4.6 of Directives for Selection of Aangabari Sevika/Sahayika/Paricharika in the year 2010, it would appear that the relatives of the People's Representative, Government Servant, licencee of the P.D.S. dealer and the lincencee of kerosene dealer are not entitled to be selected for the post of Aanganbari Sevika. The petitioner was working as Aasha worker in the Primary Health Centre. Therefore, she was rightly not selected, but the Collector, Banka passed illegal order cancelling the selection of the petitioner, and ordered for selection of Anjuman Ara (respondent no. 10). The Divisional Commissioner Bhagalpur, also ignored all these facts and the ground taken by the petitioner in her Memo of Appeal and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner.

4.

On the contrary, the learned counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the order dismissing the appeal of the petitioner. The Anjuman Ara (respondent no. 10) ranked first in the merit list. The post of Aasha worker is not a public post. She was engaged on payment of honorarium and there is no bar for appointment of a person who holds any other post on payment of honorarium. The letter no. 1089 dated 10.09.2011 issued by the Collector, Banka clearly says that Aasha worker is not a government servant and she works on payment of honorarium. 5.

For better appreciation of the submissions of both the

4/5 parties, firstly I reproduce the provision of 4.6 of Directives for Selection of Aanganbari Sevika/Sahayika/Paricharika in the year 2010 which reads as follows:

4.6 "जन्ቚतितनधियों की बहू ररश्िेदार इस पद के लऱए अयोग्य होंगी .

विलिन्न सरकारी सामधियों के वि्ቅेिाओ (जैसे जन वििरण ्ቚणाऱी वि्ቅेिा, घुमन्िु ककरासन िेऱ के वि्ቅेिा) की पत्नी/बहू/ररश्िेदार इस पद के लऱए अयोग्य होंगे."

6.

From the perusal of the aforesaid provision, there is clear stipulation that the relatives of the Government Servant, People's Representative and the Licencee of the P.D.S. shop dealer, their wives, daughter-in-law and relations are not eligible for appointment on the post of Aanganbari Sevika/Sahayika/Paricharika. The Aasha worker is not a Government Servant and respondent no. 10 (Anjuman Ara) was engaged on payment of honorarium such as Aanganbari Sevika/Sahayika/Paricharika. The Aasha worker is engaged on payment of honorarium to facilitate the pregnant lady for getting medical aid during the course of her pregnancy. The Aasha worker is also an agent and works for Bihar Health Society on the basis of contract. But the selection of the respondent no. 10 (Anjuman Ara) was not made only because she was working as Aasha worker. Admittedly, the respondent no. 10 (Anjuman Ara) applied for the post of Aanganbari Sevika and got higher marks than the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find the submissions of the learned counsel for the

5/5 petitioner acceptable that the Aasha worker is not entitled for selection for the post of Aanganbari Sevika and the Collector, Banka has rightly cancelled the selection of the petitioner as the name of respondent no. 10 (Anjuman Ara) stands at serial no. 1 in the merit list and she was rightly directed to be selected after cancelling the selection of the petitioner.

7.

Having considered the facts and discussion made, I do not find any good ground to interfere in the order of the Collector and the Commissioner cancelling the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that she stood 2nd in the merit list and respondent no. 10 (Anjuman Ara) who stood 1st in the merit list is entitled to be appointed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) rohit/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 22.08.2017 Transmission Date