2026:JHHC:3889 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5536 of 2008 -- 1. Shagupta Perween Wife of Sahid. 2. Saida Khatoon @ Said W/o. Late Niaim Khan Both are resident of Village- Haidarnagar Tola Bhai Bigha, P.O. & P.S. Haidarnagar, District- Palamau at Daltonganj .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director Social Welfare, Womens and Child Development Department (Social Welfare Directorate), Jharkhand, Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Palamau at Daltonganj 4. The District Project Officer, Palamau at Daltongani 5. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Hussainabad Palamau at Daltonganj 6. The C. D. P. O. (Child Development Project Officer) Haidarnagar, Palamau at Daltonganj. 7. The Block Education Officer, Haidarnagar, Palamau at Daltonganj 8. Mrs Roshan Gauhar W/o. Jafar Hussain. 9. Mrs. Jaitun Nishu W/o. Late Nizam Ansari respondent no. 8 and 9 are resident of village-Haidarnagar Tola Bhai Bigha, P.O. & P.S. Haidarnagar, District-Palamau at Daltonganj. ....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : None For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J. F. Toppo, G.A.-V Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, A.C to G.A.-V -- 17/12.02.2026 None appears on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Since the matter is of the year 2008, the Court is proceeding to decide the matter on the basis of available records. 3. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioners for the following reliefs: For a direction upon the concerned respondent to quash the Memo No. 1362 dated 22.09.08 (Annexure- 9) issued by the Director Social Welfare and also issue the appointment letter in favour of the petitioners as decided by the Aam Sabha (General Body Meeting) for the posts of Angan Bari Sevika for petitioner nos. 1 and 2 for the post of Sahayika of Angan Bari Centre in connection of village- Haidarnagar tola Bhai Bigha, P.O. & P.S. Haidarnagar, District-Palamau, whereby 2026:JHHC:3889 2 and whereunder the petitioner no. 1 has been selected by the Aam Sabha for the post of Sevika and the petitioner no. 2 for the post of Sahayika in connection of Angan Bari Centre of village- Haidarnagar Tola Bhai Bigha held on 10.06.2007 in presence of S.D.M. Hussainabad. The selection of the petitioners have been made by the Aam Sabha held on 10.6.07 according to the terms and conditions as prescribed out of the 4 candidates for the post of Sevika and the selection of the petitioner no. 2 has been made for the post of Sahayika, and the petitioners have not been provided appointment letter by the concerned respondents authorities for the post of Sevika and Sahaiyika, but against the decision of Aam Sabha the respondent no. 6 C.D.P.O. has provided the provisional appointment letter in favour of the respondent no. 8 and 9 for the post of Sevika and Sahayika respectively, the petitioners have better academic qualification from the respondent no. 8 and 9. But the respondent no. 8 and 9 have been appointed for the same. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the counter affidavit submits that Smt. Roshan Jahan was selected as Aangawadi Sevika in Bhaibhigha (Bangla tola) Centre in Hussainabad ICDS Project in Palamau District. The selection was done on 8.6.2007 following due process and norms laid down in Circular no. 585 dated 2.6.2006 of Govt. of Jharkhand. Later on, S.D.M. Hussainabad again organized Aam Sabha illegally on 10.6.2008 under his Chairmanship and selected Shagupta Parween as Aangawadi Sevika and Smt. Sahida Khatoon as Aangawadi Sahayika (Petitioners herein), cancelling the previous selection done on 8.6.2008. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the counter affidavit specifically submits that SDM is not authorized to cancel the previous selection of Aangawadi worker; neither was he authorized to hold a fresh Aam Sabha. He contended that as per the Circular no. 585 dated 2.6.2006, only Director, Social Welfare is authorized to cancel the previous selection on ground of deviation from the prescribed rules. 2026:JHHC:3889 3 6. It further transpires from the report of D.P.O., Palamau that the said SDM did not even send the proposal to D.C./DDC for approval. The important fact is that SDM held Aam Sabha in Bhaibhiga (Pathan tola) AWC where Anganwadi Centre was not sanctioned. On complain before the Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, the Deputy Commission authorized SDM, Hussainabad to make an enquiry and submit a report for the said complaint. The SDM sent a report to Deputy Commissioner, Palamau vide his letter no. 487 dated 19.7.2007 and he himself confessed that the Aam Sabha was organized by mistake at Bhaibhiga (Pathan toli), and also that since an Aangwadi Centre at Bhaibhiga Pathan tola was not sanctioned he recommended for a new AWC in the said tola. 7. Learned counsel further submits that the selection of Roshan Jahan as Aangawadi Sevika and Jaidun Nisha as Aanganwadi helper was done as per the prescribed norms and process. The same was approved by Deputy Development Commissioner, Palamau and selection letters were issued to the concerned. Being aggrieved by this, the applicant Shagupta Parween filed a writ petition earlier being no. 5279/2007 in the Court which was disposed of on 2.7.2008 directing the Director, Social Welfare to look into the matter and if the representation of the applicant has not been disposed of; then to pass a speaking order after hearing the concerned parties. As per direction of this Court, Director, Social Welfare conducted a thorough hearing of the applicants and finally Smt. Roshan Jahan was selected as Aangawadi worker and Smt. Jaidun Nisha was selected as Aangawadi helper of the concerned Anganwari Centre. 2026:JHHC:3889 4 8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts that the S.D.M was not authorized to call for any Aam sabha which he has conducted and only on the basis of that Aam Sabha, the petitioners are contending to be appointed as Aangan Bari Sevika/Sahayika. Therefore, I do not find any error in the decision of the concerned respondent in appointing the private respondent nos. 8 & 9 based upon the norms laid down in Circular no. 585 dated 02.06.2006. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A(s),if any, stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 12th February, 2026 Jk Uploaded on 12/03/2026