Dismissed

Patasi Devi v. Smt. Gomati Devi and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Oct 2014SAW/820/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this dispute over appointment as an Aanganwari Worker, the court dismissed the appellant's appeal. It held that a selection already made under a prevailing circular cannot be invalidated by a subsequent modification of eligibility criteria, distinguishing the principal case.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed, and the application for vacation of the interim order was disposed of.

Patasi Devi Vs Smt. Gomati Devi and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.820/2014 Patasi Devi V/s Smt.Gomati Devi and ors.

¶3

1.10.2014

¶4

HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶5

Mr.Kuldeep Mathur for the appellant. Mr.TRS Sodha ) Mr.V.R.Mehta )-for the respondents.

¶6

This special appeal arises out of the judgment dated 9.4.2014 passed by learned Single Judge, by which he has allowed the writ petition and while setting aside the appointment of the respondent no.6 dated 31.10.2013, gave liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the Child Development Project Officer, Osian within a period of 15 days to reconsider the case of the petitioner for the post of Aanganwari Worker, while ignoring the subsequent circular dated 12.7.2013.

¶7

The respondent was selected for appointment as Aanganwari Worker by the Gram Panchayat Bethwasiya in accordance with the then existing preferential qualifications. When the matter for issuing the appointment order was pending before the Child Development Project Officer, a new circular dated 12.7.2013, by which the qualifications were modified, was issued. Learned Single Judge found that the cancellation of selection of Smt.Gomati Devi, the

¶8

¶9

respondent and the appointment of Smt.Patasi Devi, treating her qualifications in accordance with the circular dated 12.7.2013, was wrong, inasmuch as, the selection was already made by the Gram Panchayat. At the time of providing appointment, the existing circular was rightly considered by the Gram Panchayat because the subsequent circular dated 12.7.2013, was not in existence at that time.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India & anr. V/s Raj Kumar ((2010) 11 SCC 661), in which it was held that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right. The claim of compassionate appointment is traceable only to specific scheme claimed by the employer. The applicant did not have any right whatsoever outside the scheme. The appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished or withdrawn. When a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the abolished scheme will also cease to exist, unless it is saved.

¶11

In our view, the judgment in State Bank of India & anr. V/s Raj Kumar (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case in hand, the selection was already made before the new circular was issued modifying the eligibility. The Gram Panchayat had recommended the appointment of Smt.Gomati Devi in accordance with the

¶12

¶13

existing circular and on which only formal order of her appointment was to be issued.

¶14

It is not denied that Smt.Gomati Devi was qualified and had preferential right to appointment in accordance with the circular, which was prevalent prior to 12.7.2013. Her selection could not be changed by the Child Development Project Officer on the ground of subsequent modification in the eligibility by circular dated 12.7.2013. The scheme is still continuing and the appointments are being made regularly.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Smt.Patasi Devi was also selected as her name was recommended alongwith the name of Smt.Gomati Devi for appointment and before the appointment could be made, the qualifications were modified by a subsequent circular. We do not find any merit in the argument, inasmuch as, forwarding of name of appellant-Smt.Patasi Devi alongwith the name of Smt.Gomati Devi, who was first selected to be appointed, would not give her any right over and above the rights of Smt.Gomati Devi, who was selected and was awaiting appointment under the then prevalent circular.

¶16

The special appeal has no merit and is dismissed. The application for vacation of interim order also stands disposed of.

¶17

¶18

(VIJAY BISHNOI), J. (SUNIL AMBWANI),Actg.CJ.

¶19

Parmar

Patasi Devi v. Smt. Gomati Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Patasi Devi v. Smt. Gomati Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Municipal Council, Pali Vs Roshan Lal

Municipal Council Pali Vs Raja Ram and Anr.

Municipal Council, Pali Vs Kewal Chand

Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat,Anoopgarh Vs Indu. Trib. and Labour Court, Sgnr andORS

Smt. Santosh Kanwar Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Yamlay Khan and Ors. Vs State and Ors.