2025:JHHC:27711 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 6552 of 2019 --------- Mina Devi, Aged about 35 years, W/o Jay Prakash Das, Resident of Village- Jagir Pratappur, P.O.-Amdar, P.S. Meharma, Dist. Godda, Jharkhand. ......Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Woman and Child Development Department, Project Building, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand. 2. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, P.O., P.S. & District Godda, Jharkhand. 3. The District Social Welfare Officer, Godda P.O., P.S. & District Godda, Jharkhand. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Mahagama, P.O. & P.S.- Mahagama, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 5. The Block Development Officer-cum-Circle Officer, Meharma, P.O. & P.S.- Meharma, District- Godda, Jharkhand. 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Meharma, P.O.& P.S. Meharma, District Godda, Jharkhand. 7. Ranju Devi, Aged about 28 years, W/o Tuntun Ravias, Resident of Village- Jagir Pratappur, P.O.-Amdar, P.S.-Meharma, Dist.- Godda, Jharkhand. .....Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Navin Kr. Singh, Advocate --------- 06/Dated:-11.09.2025 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities to appoint this petitioner on the post of Additional Anganwari Sevika-cum-Poshan Paramarshi Sakhi at Shreerampur Jagir Pratappur Centre, Block-Meharma, District-Godda on the ground that the petitioner has secured more marks than the private respondent No.7. 3. However, during course of proceeding when the 2025:JHHC:27711 2 counter affidavit was filed, it transpired that after the submission of certificate of the petitioner, in order to verify the genuineness of the certificate and to check its credibility; thorough verification was made and after verification, the District Level Committee found Central Board of Higher Education to be fake board and since the petitioner’s certificate of higher education and intermediate certificate were found to be of same board; as such, the case of the petitioner was not considered and for the respondent No.7, they took a decision for asking the residential certificate. For brevity, relevant portion of Annexure-A to the counter affidavit is quoted hereinbelow:- “ 13. ŵीरामपुर जािगर Ůताप मीना देवी, पित-जय Ůकाश दास मीना देवी, पित- जयŮकाश दास की अनुशंसा ŮखǷ ˑरीय चयन सिमित Ȫारा की गई है। परȶु शैƗिणक Ůमाण-पũ वैध बोडŊ से है या नहीं के जाँचोपरांत ही िनणŊय िलया गया है। इȴरनेट मŐ भी जाँच करने पर िविभɄ Website पर Central Board of Higer Eduction को अवैध (Fake) बोडŊ बताया गया है। अत: ŮखǷ ˑरीय िनणŊय को िनरˑ करते Šए रंजू देवी, पित ŵी Ǜोितष रिवदास का अनुमोदन हेतु िनणŊय िलया जा सकता है. परȶु इɎŐ िनवासी Ůमाण-पũ के िलए 15 िदन का समय िदया जा सकता है। िशकायत Ůाɑ Šआ है िक इनका िनवासी फजŎ है। इसकी जाँच की जाऐगी एवं गलत पाये जाने पर इनके िवŜȠ कारŊवाई की जाएगी। का चयन करने का िनणŊय िलया जा सकता है। ” 4. The counter affidavit was filed on 28.01.2022, however, no rejoinder to the same has been filed; meaning thereby to say, that the petitioner did not dispute the specific averment made in paragraph 13. 5. It goes without saying that whether the certificate is forged or genuine, is a question of fact which cannot be decided under Article 226. 2025:JHHC:27711 3 6. Accordingly, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and the instant application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) vikas/-