The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No.1 & 2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Worker and by issuing a writ of quo-warranto for quashing the appointment of respondents No.3 to 7 who had been illegally appointed; with all the consequential benefits from the date when the private respondents joined service along with interest @ 18% per annum.

¶15

The petitioner has pleaded that she is a permanent resident of village Nagla Jogian, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad and belongs to Chamar caste which falls under the scheduled caste category and hence is a scheduled caste candidate and is also having educational qualification of 10 + 2 and had also done Parbhakar from the Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak. It is pleaded that there were 14 posts of Anganwari Worker lying vacant for Ballabhgarh Tehsil and out of these posts, 2 posts were reserved for scheduled caste candidates and 12 posts were for general category candidates for which, letter was issued by the Programme Officer, I.C.D.S.

¶16

¶17

CWP No.2941 of 1994

¶18

Cell, Faridabad on 18.05.1993 inviting applications for the said posts which were to be reached in the office of the Programme Officer, I.C.D.S. Cell, Faridabad by 26.05.1993. It was further pleaded that the posts were to be filled only from the candidates belonging to scheduled caste and backward class community candidates and the desired qualification was Matriculate and Middle pass for the reserved category candidates and it was pleaded that the qualification of the petitioner was matriculate and she was a reserved category candidate. It was specifically averred in the amended writ petition that petitioner was 10+2 and had also done her Prabhakar whereas respondents no.4 to 7 were only middle class and the qualification for the post of Anganwari Worker was matriculate for all general category candidates. It was further pleaded that the official respondents had appointed the said persons and the petitioner, who had better qualification and had obtained more marks than compared to respondents No.3 to 7 in the interview but had been ignored and she had been refused appointment whereas persons lower in merit had been appointed. Therefore, appointments of respondents no.3 to 7 deserve to be quashed.

¶19

In the written statement filed by respondents no.1 and 2, it was pleaded that the quota of reservation for the post of Anganwari Worker is at block level and not at village level and 121 seats were meant for Anganwari Workers in the Ballabgarh block out of which 20% seats were reserved for scheduled caste candidates i.e. 24 seats which had already been filled up and there was no vacancy for the scheduled caste candidate. There was a clerical error in the advertisement and all 24 seats were already filled up. Regarding respondent no.3 Smt. Anju Kumari, it was pleaded that she was selected candidate of village Nangal Jogian and was matriculate and

¶20

¶21

CWP No.2941 of 1994

¶22

had obtained more marks than the petitioner as per criteria of selection and the post of Anganwari Worker of the said village was of general category. Regarding respondents No.4 to 7, it was pleaded that as per instructions of the department even primary pass candidates could be selected and appointed if they were placed in the merit list and since no matriculate candidates of the said villages were available, respondents no.4 to 7 had been selected on merit as Anganwari Workers against general category candidates as they were permanent residents of the said villages, namely, Dhaon, Ladhiapur and Kapurpur Bangar and the petitioner could not claim her appointment against the said posts as there were no reserved posts in the said villages.

¶23

After taking into consideration the written statement, this Court, on 06.03.1995, passed the following order:

¶24

“Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate,

¶25

Mr.Jaswant Singh, Advocate,

¶26

Mr.R.K.Verma, Advocate.

¶27

Mr.Bhandari has made a two-fold submission. Firstly, it is contended that one more post should have been reserved for the category of Scheduled Castes. Secondly, learned counsel submits that the appointment of Respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who did not possess the requisite qualification, was illegal.

¶28

As for the first submission, we find that in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been categorically averred that there are a total 121 posts, out of which 24 have already been filled up from amongst the members of Scheduled Castes. The reservation being at the rate of 20 per cent, the requisite number of seats for the category of Scheduled Castes have already been filled up. Consequently, there is no merit in the first submission.

¶29

With regard to the second submission, the reply is not clear. Consequently, the writ petition is admitted in so far

¶30

CWP No.2941 of 1994

¶31

¶32

as the averments made in paragraph 5-A are concerned.

¶33

The writ petition in respect of Respondent No.3 is, however, dismissed.

¶34

The writ petition may be listed for hearing within six months.”

¶35

From a perusal of the above order, it would be clear that petition in respect of respondent No.3 had already been dismissed and accordingly, the petitioner is only aggrieved against the selection of respondents No.4 to 7.

¶36

The claim of the petitioner, thus, was that she being reserved category candidate, reservation should have been provided and she was liable to be appointed as Anganwari Worker of village. The defence of the State regarding requisite number of seats being filled upon from scheduled castes candidates had already been accepted by the Division Bench and even the claim of the petitioner against respondent no.3 has been rejected. The official respondents have justified the appointments of respondents No.4 to 7 on the ground that as per instructions of the department, even primary pass candidate could be selected who belongs to the same village and for that no replication had been filed to controvert the said averment. The writ petition was admitted way back in 1995 and counsel for the petitioner has not appeared to pursue the present writ petition.

¶37

Accordingly, keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶38

(G.S.Sandhawalia) JUDGE

¶39

03.05.2012 Pka

Damyanti Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Damyanti Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Mumar Vs Prem Kumar and Anr.

Meenakshi Bhalla Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kashmiri Lal Vs State of Punjab

Baljit Singh Vs Narinder Pal Kaur

Dilbagh Singh Vs Jarnail Singh

Jaswant Singh Vs Amrik Singh