Allowed

Savita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Vibhag and Ors.

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2023SPLAD/543/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The special appeal was allowed on condonation of delay. The High Court found the single judge erred in rejecting the appellant who had higher marks than the selected candidate. The writ petition was allowed, and the appointment of the other candidate was set aside with a direction for fresh appointment.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 5.9.2019 is set aside; writ petition allowed; appointment of Urmila Chaudhari set aside; fresh appointment order directed.

Savita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 543 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Savita Devi

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Vibhag And Ors. Counsel for Appellant :- Jai Prakash Yadav,Sachichida Nand Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Pratap Singh,Dr. Alakh Ram Sharma,Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi

¶5

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

(C.M.A. No. 137101 of 2019: Application for condonation of delay.)

¶7

Sri Jai Prakash Yadav, Advocate, assisted by Sri Sachichida Nand Shukla, Advocate, is present for the appellant.

¶8

Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, Dr. Alakh Ram Sharma and Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent are not present.

¶9

Sri V.P. Nag, learned Standing Counsel appears for the StateRespondent.

¶10

Cause shown for the delay in filing the special appeal is sufficient. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

¶11

(Order on Appeal)

¶12

By means of the instant intra-court appeal the appellant Savita Devi has challenged the judgment and order dated 5.9.2019 passed by an Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court dismissing Writ Petition number 8502 (S/S) of 2006, which had been filed by the appellant seeking appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri.

¶13

A selection was held for making appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri and one Lata Devi was appointed in the process. The appellant challenged appointment of Lata Devi by

¶14

filing Writ Petition No. 6778 (S/S) of 2006, which was disposed of with a direction to the District Program Officer, Bahraich to decide the appellant’s representation. By means of an order dated 12.9.2006 the appointment of Lata Devi was cancelled on the ground that she was a rich person and did not fall below the poverty line.

¶15

On 6.10.2006 an order was passed in Writ Petition No. 8502 (S/S) of 2006 providing that if the appellant was next in the merit, the opposite parties should consider and give appointment to her. On 1.11.2006 the District Program Officer passed an order stating that a fresh advertisement should be issued for making selection.

¶16

The State filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the comparative-chart prepared for selection and it was stated in the counter-affidavit that as one Smt. Urmila was placed at Serial No. 2 in the select-list and the appellant was placed at Serial No. 4 of the list, Smt. Urmila was given appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri.

¶17

The Hon’ble Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition stating that the appellant was placed at Serial No. 4 of the select-list and, therefore, she was not entitled for being appointed to the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri.

¶18

We have considered the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the record of the case.

¶19

The comparative-chart annexed with the counter-affidavit filed in response to the writ petition, so far as it concerns the Village Babhaniyawan, indicates that five candidates were there regarding Village Bahaniyawan, but their names were not mentioned serialwise according to merit. The comparative chart

¶20

mentions the name of one Sangeeta at Serial No. 1, whose candidature had been cancelled. The appellant Savita Devi finds place at Serial No. 2 and she has been awarded 4 marks. The Respondent No. 7 Urmila Chaudhary has been placed at Serial No. 3 and She has been awarded merely 3 marks.

¶21

In paragraph 9 of the counter-affidavit filed in response to the writ petition it was pleaded that “4 numbers of applications had been received against the vacancy at Village Bahaniyawan and each of the candidate had obtained 4 marks, hence in accordance with the relevant Government Orders, on the basis of the comparative-chart of the select-list the appellant is placed at Serial No. 4. When more than one eligible candidates obtain equal marks, then selection of the candidate is done on the basis of seniority in age, therefore, as Smt. Urmila is placed at second place, who would be given priority and, hence, the appellant cannot be considered for selection being placed at Serial No. 4 in accordance with the select-list.

¶22

A perusal of the comparative-chart indicates that both the aforesaid stands taken in the counter-affidavit are wrong on the face of the record. Firstly, all the four candidates were not awarded equal marks. Respondent No. 5 Urmila Chaudhary, who has been selected, has been awarded 3 marks, whereas all the other three non-selected candidates were awarded four marks. Moreover, the appellant was not placed at Serial No.4 in the list below Urmila Chaudhary. The appellant’s name is mentioned at Serial No. 2 of the select-list, whereas name of the Respondent No. 5 is mentioned at serial No. 3. Candidature of the candidate at Serial No. 1 of the list, namely Smt. Sangeeta, had been cancelled and, therefore, the appellant’s name finds place at the top of the candidates, whose candidature was being considered.

¶23

In any case, as the appellant was awarded 4 marks in the comparative-chart, which undisputedly was higher than 3 marks awarded to Respondent No. 5, Urmila Chaudhary, who had been selected, clearly the appellant was more meritorious than Smt. Urmila Chaudhary. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellant having secured more marks than Respondent No. 5, was entitled to be selected in precedence over the Respondent No. 5.

¶24

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to find ourselves in agreement with the Hon’ble Single Judge that the appellant was placed at Serial No. 4 of the select-list and, therefore, she is not entitled for being appointed on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri.

¶25

Accordingly, the instant Special Appeal is allowed . The judgment and order dated 5.9.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge is hereby set aside and the writ-petition is allowed. Appointment of respondent No. 4 Urmila Chaudhari on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri in village Babhaniyawan is hereby set aside.

¶26

A direction is issued to the Respondent No. 4 to pass a fresh order of appointment, considering placement of the appellant in the comparative-chart annexed to the counter-affidavit filed in Writ Petition No. 8502 (S/S) of 2006.

¶27

( Subhash Vidyarthi, J. ) ( Ramesh Sinha, J. )

¶28

Order Date :- 27.1.2023 A.Nigam

¶29

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Savita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Vibhag and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Vibhag and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence New

Sanjay Bhatnagar Vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary (Higher Edu.) Up Civil Secretariat and 4 Others

Vishnu Dayal Tiwari Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Agriculture Lko and Ors.

Kripa Shankar Mishra Vs Board of Revenue Thru Secy Lko and Ors.

State of U.P.Throu Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic 5281S/S Vs Sangeeta Devi and Another

Chairman Zila Panchayat Barabanki and Anr. 2881/SS/2008 Vs Vijay Kumar and 2 Others