In Raj Kumari Devi vs.The State of Bihar & Others (2024), Patna High Court's division bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Nani Tagia concluded:"we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and direct the appellant to be appointed. We notice that the successful candidate was impleaded as the 6th respondent who was issued notice on 12.09.2024, which was received on 30.09.2024. The said candidate has not appeared before us, despite service of notice." Besides the State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, the other respondents were:Director, Social Welfare Department, District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra, District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra.Child Development Project Officer, Sonepur, Saran and Suman Devi.
The Court added:"In the above circumstances, the appellant shall be granted appointment as Anganwari Sevika. We make it clear that the appointment of the appellant shall only be from the date of joining and she shall not be entitled to any back wages or honorarium; whichever is applicable, for the earlier period.What has been paid to the 6th respondent shall remain with the 6th respondent." The Court was persuaded to reach its decision by Dr. Shiv Shankar Prasad Yadav, the appellant's counsel. He drew on a judgment of the High Court in Pushplata Kumari vs. The State of Bihar and Others (2022). The L.P.A. was filed against the order of single judge in CWJC case of 2019 in October 2022.
The appellant/petitioner had challenged denial of appointment on the ground of Clause 4.9 of the Anganwadi Sevika/Sahayika Guidelines for selection, 2011 which stipulated that if a candidate’s relative is employed with the State Government, then she shall not be considered for such appointment.
The petitioner had submitted that an amendment had enhanced the limit of income of the employed family member to Rs. 15,000/- per month from Rs. 6,000/- in the year 2015. It was the submission of the petitioner that her brother-in-law who was was a Panchayat Teacher was earning only about Rs. 6,300/- per month; lesser than the minimum income of Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioner was aggrieved with the order of the District Programme Officer which was affirmed by the District Magistrate in an appeal. The appellate order found that the Aam Sabha which was considering the selection was held on October 24, 2014 prior to the amendment made on August 7, 2015.
The single judge bench of the High Court had agreed with the Appellate Authority and found that the petitioner was not qualified for appointment, since her brother-in-law was engaged as a teacher earning more than Rs. 6,000/-, as per the unamended provision which was applicable at the time of selection. The petitioner was not eligible for consideration, was his finding.
The appellant's counsel drew the attention of the division bench of the High Court towards the decision of the Supreme Court dated January 8, 2024 in Anjum Ara vs. The State of Bihar and Others. The judgment reads: "Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines imposed a restriction on such persons whose family member or members have secured appointment with the State Government or any organization of the State. The said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines came to be challenged before the High Court by way of CWJC No. 13210 of 2014. The High Court,vide judgment and order dated 27th September, 2022, after elaborate discussion, struck down the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines. The only ground on which the appellant has been non-suited was that the appellant had not challenged the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines before the High Court. We find that the reasoning as adopted by the learned Division Bench is totally unsustainable. When the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines was struck down by the High Court vide judgment dated 27th September 2022, it ceased to exist. As such, it was not necessary for the appellant to challenge the validity of the same inasmuch as the same was already held to be invalid by the very same High Court. In that view of the matter, we find that the judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are not sustainable in law." This decision of Supreme Court's division bench of Justices B. R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta set aside the Patna High Court's decision November 28, 2022 by Justices P. B. Bajanthri , Purnendu Singh and single judge bench of Justice Madhuresh Prasad. Notably, Justice Prasad has been transferred to Calcutta High Court.
The High Court's division bench drew on Supreme Court's decision to observe: "Hence, the disqualification is no more operative, as Clause 4.9 of 2011 Guidelines has been struck down by the High Court. It cannot also have any application before the judgment, which struck it down since the High Court does not have the power to prospectively overrule and the striking down of a clause applies from the inception of the guidelines. "
No comments:
Post a Comment