2026:JHHC:1054 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No.2238 of 2021 ----- Shefali Khatun, W/o Md. Shamim Akhtar, R/o Village- Gadarpara (Paschim Tola), P.O.- Birkity, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner(s). Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur, District Pakur (Jharkhand) 3.The Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur, P.O. & P.S.- Pakur, District Pakur (Jharkhand) 4.The District Welfare Officer, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Pakur, District Pakur (Jharkhand) 5.the Block Development Officer-cum-Chairman of the Selection for Appointment of Aanganbari Sewika, Maheshpur, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur (Jharkhand) 6.The Child Development Project Officer, Maheshpur, Pakur, P.O. & P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur (Jharkhand) 7.Sahina Khatun, W/o Roni @ Rani Sheikh, R/o Village- Gadarpara, P.O. Birkity, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) … Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate Ms. Maksuda Khatun, Advocate For the State : Mr. Praveen Akhauri, SC (Mines)-I For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate Mr. Pranjal Chaturvedi, Advocate …...... 17/ 15.01.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.03.2021 at Annexure-4, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur in Misc. Case No.1 of 2021, whereby he has upheld Aam Sabha resolution dated 05.07.2019 by which the respondent No.7 has been appointed as Aanganbari Sewika of Gadarpara (Paschim Tola). Further it has been prayed that the petitioner be declared as only selected candidate to work as Aanganbari Sewika of the said Aanganbari Center. 3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is more meritorious than respondent No.7 as she is post-graduate and the respondent no.7 is graduate. Further submits that actually on 05.07.2019, no Aam Sabha was properly convened rather, the Aam Sabha which was convened ended up in ruckus and was postponed. Thus, the appointment of respondent No.7 by the aforesaid Aam Sabha cannot be treated to be a proper. Further submits that on 24.02.2020, thereafter Aam Sabha was conducted in which the petitioner was selected to be the Aanganbari Sewika. He submits that respondent No.7 also participated in the said process, but she was not selected, thus, she has got no right to be appointed. 4. Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.7 submits that the Aam Sabha which was conducted on 05.07.2019 was a proper Aam Sabha, but the same was cancelled only on the basis of a complaint, without any inquiry. He submits that respondent No.7 approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No.845 of 2020, which was disposed of directing the Deputy Commissioner to take a decision. A decision has been taken by the Deputy Commissioner after going through the records and studying the entire matter in details. The order which has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner is fair, correct and cannot be said to be arbitrary thus, he prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 5. After hearing the parties, I find that on 05.07.2019 there was an Aam Sabha (general body meeting of the villagers) to select the Aanganbari Sewika of Gadarpara (Paschim Tola), District- Pakur. Respondent No.7 was selected in the said Aam Sabha, and provisional appointment letter was also issued to the respondent No.7. The said appointment was also approved as per law by the Deputy Development Commissioner, Pakur. Thereafter, suddenly some complain was made and based on the said complain, the appointment of respondent No.7 was cancelled. Thereafter, on 24.02.2020 another Aam Sabha was held in which the petitioner was selected. 6. Sahina Khatun, (respondent No.7) had challenged the order -2- dated 14.02.2020 in a writ petition, whereby fresh Aam Sabha was called for on 24.02.2020. The said writ petition being W.P.(S) No.845 of 2020 was disposed, directing the Deputy Commissioner to take a fresh decision. The Deputy Commissioner heard both the petitioner and respondent No.7 and after going through the documents and records had arrived at a finding in favour of respondent No.7 and passed the order dated 15.03.2021, which is under challenge in this petition by the petitioner. 7. After going through the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, I find that the Deputy Commissioner has arrived at specific conclusion that the Aam Sabha dated 05.07.2019 was properly convened and in the said Aam Sabha, respondent No.7 was selected as the Aanganbari Sewika. A provisional appointment letter was also handed over to the respondent No.7. Further as per rule her appointment was also approved by the Deputy Development Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner also found that only on basis of some complain, the selection which was made vide Aam Sabha dated 05.07.2019 was cancelled and a fresh Aam Sabha was convened. The Deputy Commissioner found that the said cancellation of the Aam Sabha was absolutely bad and was not proper, thus, the Deputy Commissioner upheld the Aam Sabha dated 05.07.2019 and selection of respondent No.7 as Aanganbari Sewika. 8. I find no illegality the impugned order. This Court is not the Appellate Authority to reappraise the evidence and the materials. The finding of fact arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner that Aam Sabha dated 05.07.2019 was convened properly and in the said Aam Sabha, the respondent No.7 was selected cannot be doubted. Further the fact that provisional appointment letter was issued to the respondent No.7 and her appointment was affirmed by the Deputy Development Commissioner has also been established from the enquiry which was -3- made by the Deputy Commissioner, which is evident from the impugned order. Once the respondent No.7 has been selected properly no occasion arose to hold the second Aam Sabha on 24.02.2020. The ground for holding the second Aam Sabha is also flimsy. Merely filing of a complaint against the selection process cannot be a ground to nullify the said selection process nor can it be a ground to hold a fresh Aam Sabha. 9. So far as the educational qualification is concerned, no doubt that both the persons are eligible to be appointed as Aanganbari Sewika based on their educational qualification. The petitioner may have higher qualification, but that does not give her a right to be appointed. Here, the suitability of the person to be appointed is to be a judged. A person having a requisite qualification may be more suitable for work to be performed, than the person who is having some higher qualification. It is not necessary that person with higher qualification will always have a better right. The Aam Sabha dated 05.07.2019 found the respondent No.7 to be suitable. Thus, Aam Sabha has selected her. It is not the case of any of the parties that the respondent No.7 does not possess the minimum requisite qualification to be appointed on the post of Anganbari Sewika. Since, the respondent No.7 has the bare minimum qualification and was found suitable and her appointment was confirmed by the Deputy Development Commissioner, there was no valid reason to cancel the same merely on a complaint petition. The Deputy Commissioner’s order is justified and needs no interference. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. Respondent are directed to proceed accordingly in terms of order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 15th January, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 27 /01.2026 -4-