2025:JHHC:34437 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 4510 of 2014 Rajni Kumari Tanti Wife of Sri Anil Tanti, Resident of village Siktia, P. O. & P. S. Manoharpur, District - Deoghar ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1. State of Jharkhand 2. Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, P.O, P.S Deoghar, Dist.-Deoghar 3. Deputy Development Commissioner, Deoghar, PO, P.S Deoghar, Dist.- Deoghar 4. Child Development Project Officer, P.O P.S. Manoharpur, District - Deoghar 5. Anil Kumar, father's name not known to the petitioner, Head Clerk, CDPO Office, P.O P.S, Manoharpur, Dist. Deoghar 6. Rinku Kumari, D/O Indradeo Yadav and wife of Jaikant Tanti res. of village - Siktia, P. O. & P. S. Manoharpur, District -Deoghar ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate Mr. Asif Khan, Advocate -------- Order No. 9 /Dated: 18th November 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the respondent-State to permit the petitioner to continue on the post of Sevika in Anganbari, Siktia Kendra in place of respondent no.6 who has been appointed as Sahayika. 2. It has been alleged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was forced to resign from the post of Sevika of the concerned Anganwari Centre and it was a village politics. She further refers to several documents in the writ application in support of her contention. However, she specifically submits that respondent no.6, who is the private respondent, has been appointed as Sahayika and not Sevika; as such, learned counsel has made precise submission before this Court that she is not having any dispute with the work of private respondent no.6 who is 2025:JHHC:34437 2 working as Sahayika. 3. The case of the State-Respondent is that the petitioner has impersonated one person and when the matter came out, she resigned. Thus, it is a disputed questions of fact and allegation and counter allegation from both the sides. The stand of respondent no.6 is that she is working as Sahayika/Sewika which is mentioned in the appointment letter issued to her but the advertisement for appointment of the private respondent was for Sahayika. 4. Looking to the averments made in the respective affidavits, it is evident that the petitioner has made several allegations against the private respondent. Admittedly, this Court is neither competent; nor interested, in resolving the factual aspect of the parties. However, it is made clear that if the post of Sahayika or Sevika is vacant; then the respondent concerned should ensure that all post of Sevika and Sahayika should be filled up. 5. Accordingly, the instant writ application is hereby disposed of without going into the factual aspect of the matter; the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the 2nd Respondent by filing a representation with regard to factual claims and counter claims and the 2nd Respondent shall depute a competent officer to enquire into the matter and take a decision with regard to grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and applicable rules and regulations. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 16 weeks from the date of filing of such representation. It is made clear that in no case the post of Anganwari Sewika or Anganwari Sahayika shall remained vacant because it will adversely affect the welfare of the students. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 18th November, 2025 Amit Uploaded on 04/12/2025