Petitioner challenged Collector's order reopening recruitment for Aanganwari worker after cancelling a previous appointment. Court held no vested right limits applicant pool; process to resume per state guidelines.
Writ petition dismissed. SSO directed to ensure Gram Sabha meeting with quorum for comparative merit consideration.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Loharchi Kumari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10628/2014) Date of Order: May 11, 2015.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. B.R. Rana, for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Sharma, for respondents.
BY THE COURT :
The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 16-72014 passed by the Collector Dausa, whereunder even while cancelling the proceedings of Village Panchayat Ganglyawas Panchayat Samiti Lalsot held on 28-2-2014 appointing Kallo Devi w/o Ramavtar Meena as Anganwari worker, it has been directed that process for recruitment on the post of Aanganwari worker be initiated afresh by the SDO Lalsot strictly in accordance with the obtaining instructions and guidelines for the purpose.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Kallo Devi w/o Ramvtar Meena was appointed as Aanganwari worker by
2
Gram Panchayat Ganglyawas under resolution dated 28-22014, which has since been found illegal by the Collector
Dausa. The petitioner was most qualified amongst other applicants for appointment to the post of Anganwari worker in terms of the operating instructions set out for selection. It has been submitted that cancellation of appointment of Kallo Devi, should have entailed reconsideration for appointment to the post of Aanganwari worker only amongst 7 applicants who were before the village Panchayat Ganglyawas at the relevant time, and the Collector ought not to have directed the initiation of entire process afresh including calling for fresh applications. It has been prayed that in the circumstance the order dated 16-7-2014 to the extent of initiating process afresh for appointment of Aanganwari worker in Ganglyawas village Panchayat be quashed and it be directed that the petitioner as the most qualified amongst the seven applicants pursuant to advertisement dated 19-2-2014 be appointed as Aanganwari worker at village Panchayat Ganglyawas.
Reply to writ petition has been filed. It has been submitted that in terms of direction issued by the Collector Dausa under his order dated 16-7-2014, the Sub Divisional Officer issued advertisement on 2-9-2014 inviting
3
applications for appointment on the post of Aanganwari worker in Ganglyawas Panchayat Samiti. And pursuant to the said advertisement, aside of seven applicants who had earlier applied two other applications have been received and the matter is to be considered by the Gram Sabha of Ganglyawas Panchayat Samiti Lalsot on comparative merit of the applicants by the Gram Sabha with proper forum. The requisite steps will be taken at the earliest and appointment
made at an early date.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record of the petition.
I am of the considered view that the writ petition is without force in so far as it impugns the directions issued by the Collector Dausa vide order dated 16-7-2014 for reinitiating the process of appointment of Aanganwari worker in Ganglyawas Gram Panchayat in accordance with the instructions issued in this regard. The petitioner cannot have
any vested right to limit the number of applicants to be considered for the appointment. In fact, it is incumbent upon the respondents to ensure maximum participation for appointment process and choose the most suitable in
4
accordance with the instructions circulated for the purpose. It is not in dispute, as stated by counsel for respondents Mr. B.K.
Sharma, that the case of the petitioner will be considered on comparative merit with other applicants in accordance with the guidelines/ instructions by the State Government.
In the circumstances, I find no force in the petition. Dismissed.
It is however expected that the Sub Divisional Magistrate will ensure the meeting of the Gram Sabha with requisite quorum at an early date for consideration of the applicants seeking appointment to the post of Aanganwari
worker in the Village Panchayat Ganglyawas.
(Alok Sharma), J.
arn/
5
All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim a 'vested right' to limit the number of applicants considered for appointment when the appointment process unlawful cancelled and reopened.
Loharchi Kumari Meena
State of Rajasthan
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
