Disposed

Kaushalya Meena v. State Women and Child Development Ors.

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2023CW/4059/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order addresses two writ petitions challenging the selection of an Anganwadi Karyakarta. The court held that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by approaching the Appellate Authority. It directed them to file appeals before the District Deputy Director within two weeks, after which the appeal must be decided within one month. The writ petitions were disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to file appeal before Appellate Authority within two weeks; appeals to be decided within one month; writ petitions disposed.

Kaushalya Meena Vs State Women and Child… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/001381]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4059/2018

¶4

Kaushalya Meena Wife Of Shri Sawai Singh Meena, R/o Village Kalyanpura Khurd, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipurs, Raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Women And Children Development Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur.

¶8

The Director, Women And Child Development Department, Jaipur

¶9

Child Development Project Officer, Kotputali Jaipur

¶10

Gram Panchayat, Kalyanpura Khurd, Panchayat Samiti Kotputali, District Jaipur, Through Its Sarpanch

¶11

Santosh Bai Wife Of Shri Subhash Chand Gurjar, R/o Vpo Kalyanpura Khurd, Gram Panchayat Kalyanpura Khurd, Kotputali, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20649/2017

¶15

Santosh Bai W/o Shri Subhash Chand Gurjar, R/o Vpo Kalyanpura Khurd, Gram Panchayat Kalyanpura Khurd, Kotputli, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur.

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Woman And Child Development, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶19

Deputy Director, Woman And Child Development Department, Room No. 206, Collectorate, Jaipur.

¶20

Principal, Anganwadi Karyakarta Prashikshan Centre, Hatundi, Ajmer.

¶21

Development Officer, Child Development Project Officer, Kotputli, Jaipur.

----Respondents

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001381]

[CW-4059/2018]

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Brij Kishore Sharma, Adv
	Mr.M.S.Raghav, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.Priyanka Pareek, AGC

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶28

Order

¶29

02/02/2023

¶30

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.20649/2017:-

¶31

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Santosh Bai challenging the order dated 30.10.2017, whereby she was informed about her wrong selection being made on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta and accordingly she was relieved vide order dated 31.10.2017.

¶32

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4059/2018:-

¶33

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner – Kaushalya Meena, whereby she seeks a direction to give her appointment in pursuance of resolution dated 06.03.2017 and recommendation dated 18.07.2017.

¶34

Learned counsel Mr.M.S.Raghav, appearing for the petitioner in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.20649/2017, submitted that the petitioner was duly selected vide resolution dated 06.03.2017 and was recommended for the appointment and as such the impugned order dated 31.10.2017 has been passed on a wrong premise as the appointment of the petitioner was duly approved by the Gram Sabha by passing the resolution, as she was found to be meritorious candidate amongst the candidates who participated in pursuance of a public notice dated 01.03.2017, issued by the Gram Panchayat Kalyanpura, Panchayat Samiti Khurd.

(3 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001381]

[CW-4059/2018]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner – Kaushalya Meena in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4059/2018, since did not appear before the Gram Sabha at that stipulated time and as such she was not considered for the appointment.

¶39

Learned counsel for the petitioner in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.20649/2017, submitted that this Court had also passed an interim order on 17.11.2017, whereby operation of the order dated 30.10.2017 was stayed and the petitioner was permitted to continue the training at Rajasthan Vidhyapeeth Kulhundi, Ajmer (First Unit), however, the training of the petitioner was not to create any right in favour of the petitioner and the same was subject to final outcome of the writ petition.

¶40

Learned counsel Mr.Brij Kishore Sharma, for the petitioner in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4059/2018, submitted that the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner had placed her at Serial No.1, as she was awarded highest marks i.e. 7 marks and the private respondent Santosh Bai had only secured 4 marks and as such the report prepared by the Child Development Project Officer, Kotputli was required to be acted upon.

¶41

Per contra, Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitions which have been filed before this Court may not be entertained as both the petitioners have an alternative remedy of approaching the Appellate Authority, which can look into the grievance of both the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in respect of selection of a proper person.

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondents refers to a Circular dated 09.11.2016, where complete procedure has been given in

(4 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/001381]

[CW-4059/2018]

respect of appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta, Mini Karyakarta & Sahayika.

¶47

Learned counsel submitted that as per the procedure, as provided in Clause 2 of the said circular, there is a provision under sub-clause (C) of Clause 2 of filing appeal against any grievance in respect of the selection made by the Gram Sabha and first appeal can be filed before the District Deputy Director and as such the grievance of both the petitioners, can be looked upon by the such Officer.

¶48

This Court finds that both the petitioners have an alternative remedy of approaching the Appellate Authority and further the timeline has also been provided for deciding the appeal within a period of one month.

¶49

This Court, accordingly directs both the petitioners to file appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks and on receipt of such appeal, the Appellate Authority i.e. District Deputy Director will decide the appeal within a period of one month.

¶50

This goes without saying that if any person feels aggrieved against the order passed by the Appellate Authority, he/she, is free to avail the remedy, as provided under the law.

¶51

Accordingly, the present writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶52

A copy of this order be separately placed in each file.

¶53

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

¶54

Monika/2-3

Kaushalya Meena v. State Women and Child Development Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushalya Meena v. State Women and Child Development Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rakhi Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sameer Ahemad Son of Shri Islam Ahemad Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram Meena S/O Shri Radheshyam Vs State of Rajasthan

Ronak Serawat S/O Ramkishor Serawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Pankaj Jangir S/O Banwari Lal Jangir Vs State of Rajasthan

Hariom Meena Son of Shri Ramprasad Vs State of Rajasthan through Secretary