Dismissed

Santosh Sharma W/O Chetan Prakash Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2021CW/410/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought appointment as an Anganwari Worker, claiming selection and superior merit over a rival candidate. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that since no appointment was made under the previous selection and over a year had lapsed, no relief could be granted, though the petitioner remains free to join the fresh selection process.

What the court decided

AI extract

Santosh Sharma W/O Chetan Prakash Sharma Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 410/2020

¶3

Santosh Sharma W/o Chetan Prakash Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Bamboliya Khurd, Panchayat Bamboliya Kalan, Tehsil Itawa, Dist. Kota (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Women And Child Welfare, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, Integrated Child Development Program, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

Child Development Programme Officer, Itawa, Dist. Kota, Raj.

¶9

	----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Shobha Sharma on behalf of Mr. Satish Chandra Pachori :

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

05/03/2021

¶13

The petitioner by way of this petition prays to direct the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Worker at Bomboliya Khurd, Panchayat Bomboliya Kalan, Tehsil Itawa, Dist. Kota (Raj.).

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that selection process was started and in the selection process, the name of the petitioner finds place in the select list. She has got five marks and was therefore required to be given appointment. It is stated that other candidates who also scored five marks were lesser in the

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-410/2020]

¶17

age and as per the circular issued by the Social Welfare and Women and Child Development Department, the petitioner who was elder in age was required to be gave appointment, however, the concerned Sarpanch was not ready to offer appointment to the petitioner. She therefore submitted a representation to the Collector and the Collector after considering the representation directed the CDPO not to give appointment to any other person. Learned counsel submits that no decision was taken, thus petitioner approached this court by filing a present writ petition, however, the writ petition could not be taken for admission.

¶18

Now advertisement has been issued on 12.2.2021 for inviting fresh applications for appointment on the post of Anganwari Worker. Learned counsel submits that as the petitioner was named in the select list, she has a right to be appointed on the post of Anganwari Worker and merely on account of the action of the Sarpanch, the petitioner cannot be deprived of her rightful claim.

¶19

4. I have considered the submissions.

¶20

Although, this court finds that the petitioner’s name was placed in the select list and she has got 5 marks equal to other two candidates:Deepa Kumari & Rinku Kumari Bairwa however, the selections does not reflect as to whether the other two candidates scored equal marks and were lesser in age. However, this court finds that the no person has been given appointment under the said selection. Admittedly, there is no right of appointment available to any person. It is only if any person lesser in merit is appointed that cause of action could have arrived.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[CW-410/2020]

¶23

Government authorities have always a right not to proceed further with the selection process and drop the selection.

¶24

In the present case, it appears that the Collector has directed not to give appointment under the said selection on account of the controversy arises. Fresh selection process has already been started and the petitioner is always free to participate in the said selection. No relief can be given to the petitioner as more than one year has lapsed from earlier selection process.

¶25

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶26

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶27

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶28

Anu /397

Santosh Sharma W/O Chetan Prakash Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Santosh Sharma W/O Chetan Prakash Sharma v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seema Udani D/O Shri Mohan Lal Udani Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Tiwari Son of Shri Champalal Tiwari Vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Kapil Bhargava S/O Shri Atma Ram Bhargava Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Mankaur Daughter of Shri Hanuman Singh Vs the Secretary

Namrata Jat D/O Prahlad Jat Vs State of Rajasthan

Suraj Sansi S/O Shri Rajkumar Vs State of Rajasthan