Dismissed

Rita v. District Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar and 3 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2021WRIA/10114/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the rejection of her claim for appointment as an Anganwadi Karyakatri. The Court held that the 2010 selection process remained unfinalized due to prolonged inaction and refusals by candidates, thereby precluding any right to appointment based on that obsolete list.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the petitioner has no merit in relying on an unfinalized 2010 selection list.

Rita Vs District Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar and 3… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 36

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10114 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rita Respondent :- District Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umang Srivastava,Ram Krishna Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 23.1.2020 passed by the respondent no. 1 namely the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, whereby her claim for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri in Village Baridiha, Village Panchayat Kochri, Vikas Khand Haiser Bazar, District Sant Kabir Nagar has been rejected, stating therein that it is not possible to appoint the petitioner pursuant to a select list which was drawn in the year 2010.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had duly participated in the selection on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.2.2010. In the said selection, 7 applications were received by the last date which was 8.3.2010. The Selection Committee met on 27.03.2010 and had recommended the name of one Smt. Indrawati wife of Kamlesh for the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri. The said recommendation was sent by the District Programme Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar to the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar for approval. However, selected candidate Smt. Indrawati wife of Kamlesh moved an application dated 19.6.2010 seeking cancellation of her selection.

¶8

It is then contended that another select list was drawn and the name of one Smt. Sheela Devi wife of Dinesh Yadav was recommended and approval was sought from the District Magistrate. On the complaint being received regarding the validity of her appointment, an enquiry was conducted under the orders of the District Magistrate dated 2nd June,

¶9

¶10

On the basis of the enquiry report, the approval order was cancelled by the office order dated 5.8.2011. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition No. 19740 of 2012 was filed by Smt. Sheela Devi which was disposed of with the direction to consider her representation. Pursuant thereto, an office order dated 20.12.2013 had been passed rejecting the representation of Smt. Sheela Devi wife of Dinesh Yadav, the selected candidate. Another Writ Petition No. 22995 of 2014 was filed by Smt. Sheela Devi which is stated to be pending as on date.

¶11

After the said decision made by the office order dated 20.12.2013, the petitioner herein had moved an application claiming selection on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri on the basis that she was placed at serial no. 3 in the select list prepared by the Selection Committee. The claim of the petitioner remained pending and hence she had filed a Writ Petition No. 17742 of 2014 pleading therein for a direction that her application be considered in accordance with law.

¶12

Pursuant to the directions in the said writ petition, an application dated 23.5.2014 was moved by the petitioner which was rejected vide order dated 7.6.2014 passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. It was stated therein that no select list placing the petitioner at serial no. 3 was drawn and hence her claim for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri could not be considered. The said order further records that there was a prohibition in the appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri at certain point of time which has not been released.

¶13

The said order was again challenged in Writ-A No. 59934 of 2014 (Rita vs. D.M., Sant Kabir Nagar and 2 others), wherein the Court had quashed the same recording that the claim of the petitioner had been rejected on wrong premise, inasmuch as, the report of the Chief Development Officer indicated that a merit list was drawn pursuant to the selection proceeding for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri. The matter was, therefore, remitted for fresh consideration by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar. After receipt of the copy of that

¶14

¶15

order, the fresh order dated 23.1.2020 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

¶16

The order impugned narrates the letter dated 22.1.2020 of the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow which records that the matter of selection of the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri pertains to a selection which was made in the year 2010. The Government Order dated 16th December, 2003 which provides procedure for selection on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri was effective on the said date. The Government Order dated 26th June, 2006 had further been issued and pursuant to which a letter dated 23rd August, 2006 was issued from the Directorate which contained the direction as follows:-

¶17

“ Jherh jhrk nsoh iRuh Jh vtqZu dqekj] xzke ckjhMhgk] xzke iapk;r dkspjh] iks0& rfd;k] tuin lar dchj uxj ds vkaxuckM+h dk;Zd=h in ij p;u dh dk;Zokgh dk izdj.k o"kZ 2010 dk gSA rr~le; vkaxuckM+h dk;Zd=hZ p;u 'kklukns'k la[;k Hkk0lk0&215@lkB&2&2003&2@1 ( 4 ) 1991 fnuakd 16 fnlECkj] 2003 izHkkoh FkkA 'kklu ds i= la[;k 1977 ( 1 ) @60&2&06 &2@12 ( 5 ) @04 Vh0lh0 fnuakd 26 twu 2006 ds dze esa funs'kky; i= la[;k lh0& 716 fnuakd 23 vxLr] 2006 }kjk leLr ftyk dk;Zdze vf/kdkjh mRrj izns'k dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk “ lEcfU/kr ifj;kstuk ds lEcfU/kr dsUnz ds fy, rS;kj dh x;h lwph esa izFke LFkku ij jgus okyh vH;fFkZuh dh vk;@vU; izek.k i= lR;kiu ds mijkUr lgh u ik;s tkus ij ml dsUnz dh f}rh; ojh;rk izkIr djus okyh vH;fFkZuh dh p;u fd;k tk;sxkA ;fn ojh;rk lwph ugha cuk;h x;h gS rks p;u dh dk;Zokgh iqu% dh tk;sxhA ” bl izdkj r`rh; ojh;rk izkIr vH;fFkZuh ds p;u ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ”

¶18

It was clarified therein that the third placed candidate in the merit list would not be considered for selection to the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri and in case of non-selection of the first placed candidate, the second placed candidate would only be considered.

¶19

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been placed at serial no. 2 in the merits list, inasmuch as, Smt. Sheela Devi who was placed at serial no. 2 was a sitting Gram Pradhan on the date of the application. She had concealed

¶20

¶21

the said fact and hence her selection and placement at serial no. 2 was bad in law.

¶22

The reference has been made to paragraph nos. '8' and '9' of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that on the date of submission of the application, Smt. Sheela Devi, the second placed candidate was posted as Village Gram Pradhan in Village Panchayat Kochri and she could not have applied for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri without resigning from the post of Gram Pradhan.

¶23

Reference has also been made to the report dated 29.12.2011 of the Chief Development Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶24

It may be noted that approval for selection of Smt. Sheela Devi wife of Dinesh Yadav was cancelled vide office order dated 5.8.2011. For the first time, the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2014 by filing the Writ Petition No. 17742 of 2014 claiming appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, pursuant to a selection which was made on the recommendation dated 27.3.2010. The order dated 7.6.2014 was in view of the directions of this Court in the judgment and order dated 27.3.2014 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner staked her claim for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri by approaching this Court after a period of four years.

¶25

It is further pertinent to note that the selection which was recommended by the Selection Committee on 27.3.2010 had not been made for the reason that the first placed candidate had refused to join the post and moved an application for cancellation of her selection and the second placed candidate was found ineligible. It, thus, appears that the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 27.3.2010 had not been given effect to, till the year 2014 when the petitioner moved this Court seeking consideration of her claim for appointment to the said post. There is no explanation in the writ petition for the said inaction and only submission is that the petitioner kept on making representations to the

¶26

¶27

competent authority. Even otherwise, there was a lot of confusion in the matter of selection of Anganwadi Karyakatri at that point of time as the second placed candidate, whose selection was cancelled, had also approached this Court.

¶28

In the said facts and circumstances, it is evident that the selection made in the year 2010 had not been finalized.

¶29

The claim of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of a selection process conducted on 27.3.2010, the date of meeting of the Selection Committee, on the premise that she was wrongly placed at serial no. 3 in the select list cannot be considered. Every selection process has to be brought to its logical end at some point of time. For the fact that the petitioner kept on moving this Court from time to time and her claim was rejected on inadmissible grounds does not give her right to claim appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, pursuant to the select list which was drawn in the year 2010.

¶30

For the above, no merit is found in the claim of the petitioner.

¶31

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶32

Order Date :- 27.1.2021 Brijesh

Rita v. District Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rita v. District Magistrate Sant Kabir Nagar 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

H.R Tripathi Vs General Manager North Central 3 Others

Vishnu Dev Mishra Vs Union of India and 8 Others

Banti Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mridal Mishra Vs Union of India and 7 Others

Shiv Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others