JHARKHAND HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON RINKU KUMARI V/S THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

RANCHI, India, Jan. 7 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Dec. 8:

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the appointment of respondent No.5- Purnima Kumari as Anganbadi Sewika of VillageDondiya, Jama.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that this petitioner and respondent No.5 were both candidates for the said post but the candidature of the petitioner was rejected arbitrarily. He submits that even if both the candidates have obtained equal marks in the selection process but since the community from which the petitioner belongs is dominant and has more population in the said area, the petitioner should have been selected. It is her case that even if both of them belong to the OBC Category, but since the particular caste of which the petitioner belongs is having more population, the petitioner should have been selected. He further submits that there is no rationale in considering the marks obtained in Matriculation. He lastly submits that Clause 3(5) of the Regulation dated 30.09.2022 should have been applied in this case.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that as per Clause 3(12) of the said Regulation, if in the selection process, the marks of two candidates are equal, then the person who has obtained more marks in Matriculation is to be selected. In this case since admittedly, the respondent No.5 obtained more marks in Matriculation, she has been selected.

5. After hearing the parties, I find that it is an admitted case of both the parties that in the selection process, the petitioner and respondent No.5 have obtained the same marks. As per Clause 3(12) of the Regulation which governs appointment of Anganbadi Sewika/Anganbadi Sahayika, if the marks obtained by two or more candidates in the selection process is same, then the candidates who has obtained more marks in Matriculation, will be selected.

In this case admittedly, the respondent No.5 has obtained more marks in Matriculation than the petitioner. Thus, she has been selected. Thus, the selection is as per the rules and there is no illegality.

6. So far as the claim of the petitioner that the caste which the petitioner belongs to, is having more population in the said area, thus she should be appointed, has no rationale or legal sanctity. Admittedly both, the petitioner and the respondents are in OBC Category. What the petitioner submits, if implemented will amount to sub-categorization of OBC Class, which cannot be allowed. Classification of OBC cannot be further broken down in sub-castes. Once both the persons are in OBC Category, there cannot be further sub-categorization. All the castes declared as OBC should be treated as a whole.

7. Thus, I find no merit in this writ petition, accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.