2025:JHHC:27102 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4526 of 2018 Anita Devi, aged about 26 years, W/o Shri Surendar Saw, Resident of Village Khaira, P.O.-Dwari, P.S.-Patthalgada, Dist.-Chatra, Jharkhand. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Project Building, P.O. & PS- Dhurwa, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Chatra, P.O.- Chatra, P.S.-Chatra(T), District- Chatra, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, P.O.-Chatra, P.S.-Chatra(T), District-Chatra, Jharkhand. 4. The District Social Welfare Officer, Chatra, P.O.- Chatra, P.S. Chatra(T), District- Chatra, Jharkhand. 5. The Child Development Project Officer, Simaria, P.O.- Simaria, P.S. Simaria, District- Chatra, Jharkhand. 6. The Lila Devi, w/o Shri Ravindra Nath Thakur, Resident of Village- Khaira, P.O.- Dwari, P.S.-Patthalgada, Dist.- Chatra, Jharkhand .… … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Shankar Jha, Advocate Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Kumar Pawan, AC to SC (Mines)-III For the Respondent No.6 : Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate -------- Order No.12 /Dated: 8th September 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the appointment letter vide Memo Camp- O/dated 05.04.2013 issued by the 5th Respondent; whereby the Respondent no.6 has been appointed as Aanganbari Sevika of Aanganbari Centre, Khaira, village-Khaira PO-Dwari, PS- Patthalgada, District-Chatra. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondent no.6 does not belong to the concerned village and she has been appointed without following the guidelines and norms issued by the Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Jharkhand. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State relies upon its counter 2025:JHHC:27102 2 affidavit and submits that even otherwise the petitioner slept over the matter and filed the writ application after several years of appointment of Respondent no.6. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6 contends that there is no illegality and she has been rightly appointed by the proper Aam Sabha. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on 16.01.2024 by the Respondent- State stating as under: “10. That it is submitted that for the selection of Sevika as per the Government Notification, women candidates belonging to backward caste category was required to be given preference which is surplus amongst the beneficiaries. 11) That in the aforesaid selection process, 13 women candidates have participated and out of them, 11 candidates were out rightly rejected upon the following grounds: (1) Candidate No. 1- Jyoti Tuti- Does not belongs to Backward Caste; (ii) Candidate No. 2-Kanchan Devi-Belongs to different village; (iii) Candidate No. 3 -Akansha Baxla- Does not belongs to Backward Caste (iv) Candidate No. 5- Anita Devi- Being Intermediate qualified but her marks was found to be less than other participating eligible candidates; (v) Candidate No. 6- Renu Devi-Does not belongs to Backward Caste: (vi) Candidate No. 7-Kiran Masomat- was only Matric Qualified and also did not annexed any certificates; (vii) Candidate No. 8-Anjana Devi-Does not belongs to Backward Caste; (viii) Candidate No. 9-Gudiya Kumari-Her husband happens to be Para Teacher; (ix) Candidate No. 10-Sonam Devi-Does not belongs to Backward Caste; (x) Candidate No. 11-Gayatri Devi-Resident of different village; (xi) Candidate No. 13-Babita Devi- Does not belongs to Backward Caste; 12) That it is submitted that after rejection of aforementioned candidates by the selection committee, only two candidates remained i.e. petitioner and Lila Devi (Respondent No.6) remained who were possessing the requisite qualification and it was decided by the committee as well as the villagers that candidate securing more marks in intermediate would be selected. 13) That it is submitted that on perusal of the intermediate certificate of petitioner and Lila Devi, it was found that petitioner has scored 214 marks in the intermediate whereas respondent No.6 had scored 239 marks in her intermediate examination and accordingly, founding respondent No.6 to have obtained more marks than the petitioner, she was declared to be selected and on the basis of recommendation of selection committee, appointment letter was issued in favour of respondent No.6.” 6. Having regard to the specific averments made in the aforesaid paragraphs, it is crystal clear that there is no illegality in the appointment of Respondent no.6. Even otherwise, the Petitioner has prayed for quashing the appointment letter vide Memo Camp-O/dated 05.04.2013; however, she had filed the instant writ application on 04.09.2018; as such, it can be inferred 2025:JHHC:27102 3 that the Petitioner slept over the matter for five years and finally one fine morning chooses to challenge the appointment of Respondent no.6. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court has criticized the aforesaid action and categorically held that a person who is not vigilant shall not be granted relief. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. 8. Pending I.As., if any, also stand disposed of. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Amit