Dismissed

Vimla Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Apr 2018SPLA/198/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special appeal, the High Court challenged the dismissal of a writ petition seeking regularization for the post of Mukhya Sevika. The Court upheld the impugned order, finding the post to be a selection post and concluding there was no illegality in the selection process given the appellant's age and marks relative to other candidates.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed.

Vimla Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

1/4

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 198 of 2015

¶4

Appellant :- Vimla Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pramod Kumar Pandey,Radha Kant Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶6

( Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

¶7

Present Special Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 19 February 2015 by which a learned Judge of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. The prayer made in the writ petition was to quash the order dated 13 September 2011 and further command the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Mukhya Sevika pursuant to the Government Order dated 25 July 2006.

¶8

The appellant was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakatri on 11 January 1983 in the office of Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, Birno, Ghazipur and was working continuously since the last 27 years. The State Government amended the Uttar Pradesh Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar (Adhinasth) Seva Niyamawali, 2006 (in short, the "Rules, 2006") on 25 July 2006. This provides that Anganwadi Karyakatri, who have completed 10 years of continuous service from the date of recruitment and have not completed the age of 50 years may be considered by Selection Committee for appointment on the post of Mukhya Sevika. Proceeding for selection on the post of Mukhya Sevika started and finally a list was prepared from those Anganwadi Karykari, who had completed 10 years of continuous service for the selection on the post of Mukhya Sevika. The name of appellant was placed at serial No. 28 in the said list.

¶9

A letter dated 4 September 2009 was also sent to District

¶10

2/4

¶11

Programme Officer, Ghazipur to inform the concerned Anganwadi Karyakatri to appear before Directorate of Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P., Lucknow along with certain documents and pursuance thereof, Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Ghazipur issued a letter dated 15 September 2009 to the appellant directing her to appear before the Directorate of Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P., Lucknow on 18 September 2009 at 10:00 am.

¶12

Thereafter, in compliance of directions contained in letter dated 15 September 2009, the appellant appeared before the Directorate on the date fixed and document verification was completed but no selection/appointment letter was issued to her. Many others Anganwadi Karyakatri, whose names were also included in the list were issued letters for their selection but such a letter was not issued to the appellant.

¶13

Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 42366 of 2011 which was disposed of by order dated 1 August 2011 with a direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order strictly in accordance to law.

¶14

The Director considered the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same by order dated 13 September 2011. It is stated in the order that the post of Mukhya Sevika was not a promotional post, but a selection post and all those candidates who have obtained 27 marks and whose date of birth is on or before 1 April 1960 have been considered for selection. It is also stated in the order that if two candidates obtained 27 marks then the candidate who is older in age would be given preference. It is further stated in the order that Selection Committee did not recommend the name of the appellant and the appellant has also crossed the age of 50 years.

¶15

3/4

¶16

Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13 September 2011, the appellant preferred Writ Petition No.68489 of 2011 which was ultimately dismissed by the learned Judge by order dated 19 February 2015. This present Special Appeal has been filed against the said judgment.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Judge has wrongly concluded that the post of Mukhya Sevika is not a promotional post, but a selection post. It is also his submission that the order dated 13 September 2011, mentions that candidates of General category who have obtained 27 marks and whose date of birth is upto 1 April 1960 have been considered. The appellant has obtained 27 marks and belongs to the general category and since her date of birth is 1 February 1960, she should have been given preference over the candidate whose date of birth is 1 April 1960. A further submission has been advanced that several candidates whose names are mentioned in paragraph 11 of the writ petition have been given appointment though they have obtained lesser marks than the appellant.

¶18

Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents supported the order impugned in the writ petition and has also placed the copy of Uttar Pradesh Child Development & Nutrition (Subordinate) Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 1992 amended from time to time, and pointed out that Anganwadi Workers who have completed ten years continuous service as such and have not attanined the age of more than fifty years on the first day of the year of recruitment can be considered for the post of Mukhya Sevika.

¶19

Learned Standing Counsel has also produced the records to contend that due to typographical error the date of birth of last selected Anganwadi Worker was mentioned as 1 April 1960 instead of 4 January

¶20

4/4

¶21

He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 13 April 2011 by which this mistake was rectified by the Director. It is, therefore, his submission that there is no illegality in selecting the candidates who had obtained 27 marks with the date of birth as 4 January 1960.

¶22

Learned Standing Counsel has also given details of the candidates mentioned in paragraph 11 of the writ petition. The first Anganwadi Karyakarti-Mewati Devi belongs to Other Backward Class and obtained 27 marks. The second candidate-Urmila Dubey belongs to General Category and obtained 28 marks and while the third candidate-Ansuiya Singh belongs to General Category and obtained 27 marks and her date of birth is 15 April 1958 i.e. older to the appellant. Prabha Devi belongs to the Scheduled Caste and obtained 27 marks. Brij Keshari belongs to the Other Backward Class and obtained 27 marks and Bacchi Devi belongs to Scheduled Caste and obtained 25 marks. The minimum cut off marks for selection on the Mukhya Sevika in General Category was 27, for other Backward Class was 26 and for Scheduled Caste was 25.

¶23

It is, therefore, not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant.

¶24

There is no illegality in the order of the learned Judge. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶25

Order Date :- 3.4.2018 Junaid

¶26

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶27

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

Vimla Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vimla Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Bahadur Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Kalaam @ Lalla Miyan Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Renu Vs State of U.P. and 03 Others

Smt. Alka Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Shri Radha Krishna Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Vs State of U.P. Thru Secry. and 16 Others

Ashwani Kumar Chaubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others