Allowed

Medini Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Women'S Empowernemnt of Child Development Section - 2 Dehrad

Uttarakhand HC4 Jun 2024WPMS/2382/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court held that a State Government cannot bypass the first-ranked candidate on a merit panel prepared by a Selection Committee. The petitioner, ranked first, was denied appointment while lower-ranked candidates were picked. The court also rejected the claim of disqualification due to prior service on the Child Welfare Committee, directing appointment of the petitioner within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Competent authority directed to appoint petitioner as Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

WPMS No. 2382 of 2022
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.

(1) Mr. Vinod Tiwari, learned counsel for
the petitioner.

(2) Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing
Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
(3) Mr. A.M. Saklani & Mr. M.C. Upadhyaya,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4.
(4) Director, Women Welfare, Uttarakhand
issued
an
advertisement,
whereby
applications were invited for appointment as
Member, Juvenile Justice Board, as per
Section 4 of The Juvenile Justice (Care and
Protection of Children) Act, 2015. By the
same advertisement, applications were also
invited from eligible persons for appointment
as Member of Child Welfare Committee,
constituted under Section 27 of the aforesaid
Act.
(5) Petitioner applied pursuant to the said
advertisement for the post of Member,
Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar.
State Government constituted a Selection
Committee under Rule 87(1) of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection of Children)
Model
Rules,
2016.
The
Selection
Committee interacted with all the candidates
and based on their performance, prepared a
panel of names which was sent to the State
Government for appointment as Member of
Juvenile Justice Board.

(6)According to petitioner,her namewas

placed at Serial No. 1 in the panel prepared
for appointment as Member of Juvenile Justice Board, however, persons, who were placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 in the said panel, were appointed by completely ignoring claim of the petitioner. This, according to petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal, as a candidate found to be more meritorious by the Selection Committee cannot be overlooked in the matter of appointment and candidates, who were found to be less
meritorious, cannot be appointed by ignoring claim of candidate, who is placed on top of the panel.
(7) A specific query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the names in the panel prepared by the Selection Committee are arranged strictly in order of merit or not.
(8) In reply, learned counsel has placed reliance upon Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 88 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Model Rules, 2016, which is reproduced below: - “8 8 ( 7 )The Selection Committee shall, on the basis of the evaluation procedure and criteria, select and recommend a panel of names in order of merit to the State Government for appointment as Members of the Board or Chairperson or Members of the Committee as the case may be.”
(9) From perusal of Sub-Rule(7) of Rule 88 of the said Rules, it is revealed that the
Selection Committee is under a duty to
interact with all candidates for evaluating
their merit and then to prepare a panel of
names, which shall be sent to the State
Government for appointment. It further
provides that names in thepanel have to be

placed at Serial No. 1 in the panel prepared

for appointment as Member of Juvenile
Justice Board, however, persons, who were
placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 in the said panel,
were appointed by completely ignoring claim
of
the
petitioner.
This,
according
to
petitioner, is arbitrary and illegal, as a
candidate found to be more meritorious by
the
Selection
Committee
cannot
be
overlooked in the matter of appointment and
candidates, who were found to be less

meritorious, cannot be appointed by ignoring
claim of candidate, who is placed on top of
the panel.

(7) A specific query was put to learned
counsel for the petitioner, as to whether the
names
in
the
panel
prepared
by
the
Selection Committee are arranged strictly in
order of merit or not.

(8) In reply, learned counsel has placed
reliance upon Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 88 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children)
Model
Rules,
2016,
which
is
reproduced below: -
“**8 8 ( 7 )**The Selection Committee shall, on the
basis of the evaluation procedure and criteria,
select and recommend a panel of names in order
of
merit
to
the
State
Government
for
appointment as Members of the Board or
Chairperson or Members of the Committee as
the case may be.”

(9) From perusal of Sub-Rule(7) of Rule 88
of the said Rules, it is revealed that the

Selection Committee is under a duty to

interact with all candidates for evaluating

their merit and then to prepare a panel of

names, which shall be sent to the State

Government for appointment. It further

provides that names in thepanel have to be

arranged in order of merit. Thus, this Court
finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State Government, while making appointment, cannot ignore merit of a
candidate, or in other words, without offering appointment to the candidate placed on top of the merit list, appointment cannot be offered to candidates placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 in the merit list.
(10) Admittedly, the persons, who were appointed as Members, Juvenile Justice Board, were placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 in the panel. Since, arrangement of names in the panel has to be as per merit, therefore, it can be safely inferred that Selection Committee found respondent nos. 3 & 4 to be inferior in merit compared to petitioner.
(11) Learned State Counsel relied upon Sub- Rule (13) of Rule 88 of the aforesaid Rules for contending that the State Government is free to pick any name from the panel for appointment as Member, Juvenile Justice Board. Sub-Rule (13) of Rule 88 of the Rules is reproduced below: - “8 8 ( 1 3 )The State Government shall fill the vacancies on the basis of the panel of names recommended by the Selection Committee within a period of three months from receiving such information from the District Child Protection Unit.”
(12) The submission made by State Counsel could have been accepted, if Sub-Rule (13) of Rule 88 was read in isolation. However,
conjoint reading of Sub-Rule(13) and Sub- Rule (7) of Rule 88 of the Rules leads to the only logical inference that the State
Government is not free to randomly pick any
namefromthe panel forappointment,when

arranged in order of merit. Thus, this Court

finds substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
State
Government,
while
making
appointment, cannot ignore merit of a

candidate,
or
in
other
words,
without
offering appointment to the candidate placed
on top of the merit list, appointment cannot
be offered to candidates placed at Serial
Nos. 2 & 3 in the merit list.

(10) Admittedly, the persons, who were
appointed
as
Members,
Juvenile
Justice
Board, were placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 in
the panel. Since, arrangement of names in
the panel has to be as per merit, therefore,
it can be safely inferred that Selection
Committee found respondent nos. 3 & 4 to
be inferior in merit compared to petitioner.

(11) Learned State Counsel relied upon Sub-
Rule (13) of Rule 88 of the aforesaid Rules
for contending that the State Government is
free to pick any name from the panel for
appointment as Member, Juvenile Justice
Board. Sub-Rule (13) of Rule 88 of the Rules
is reproduced below: -
“**8 8 ( 1 3 )**The State Government shall fill the
vacancies on the basis of the panel of names
recommended
by
the
Selection
Committee
within a period of three months from receiving
such
information
from
the
District
Child
Protection Unit.”

(12) The submission made by State Counsel
could have been accepted, if Sub-Rule (13)
of Rule 88 was read in isolation. However,

conjoint reading of Sub-Rule(13) and Sub-
Rule (7) of Rule 88 of the Rules leads to the
only
logical
inference
that
the
State

Government is not free to randomly pick any

namefromthe panel forappointment,when

names in the panel are arranged in
descending order of merit. Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 88 of the aforesaid Rules clearly indicates that a person, who is placed at Serial No. 1 in the panel, was found to be more meritorious than all other candidates whose names are included in the panel. Thus, ignoring a candidate placed at Serial No. 1 in the panel and offering appointment to persons placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 would be unjust and illegal.
(13) Sub-Rule (13) of Rule 88 does not give licence to State Government to act in a whimsical manner and the power of appointment available to the State Government is circumscribed by Sub-Rule (7) of Rule 88 of the Rules.
(14) Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 3 & 4 contended that petitioner has served as Member of Child Welfare Committee for two terms, therefore, she is disqualified for appointment as Member of Juvenile Justice Board in view of
provisions contained in Rule 5(2) of the aforesaid Rules. Rule 5(2) of the aforesaid Rules provides that a social worker member of the Board shall be eligible for appointment for maximum of two terms.
(15) Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was never
appointed as Member of Juvenile Justice Board, and the Child Welfare Committee, in which she served as Member, is constituted
under Chapter-V of Section 27 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of
Children) Act, 2015, while Juvenile Justice
Board is established under Chapter–III of
the said Act. He, thus, submits that petitioner servingas Member,Child Welfare

names
in
the
panel
are
arranged
in

descending order of merit. Sub-Rule (7) of
Rule 88 of the aforesaid Rules clearly
indicates that a person, who is placed at
Serial No. 1 in the panel, was found to be
more meritorious than all other candidates
whose names are included in the panel.
Thus, ignoring a candidate placed at Serial
No. 1 in the panel and offering appointment
to persons placed at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 would
be unjust and illegal.

(13) Sub-Rule (13) of Rule 88 does not give
licence to State Government to act in a
whimsical
manner
and
the
power
of
appointment
available
to
the
State
Government is circumscribed by Sub-Rule
(7) of Rule 88 of the Rules.

(14) Learned
counsel
appearing
for
respondent nos. 3 & 4 contended that
petitioner has served as Member of Child
Welfare Committee for two terms, therefore,
she
is
disqualified
for
appointment
as
Member of Juvenile Justice Board in view of

provisions contained in Rule 5(2) of the
aforesaid Rules. Rule 5(2) of the aforesaid
Rules provides that a social worker member
of the Board shall be eligible for appointment
for maximum of two terms.

(15) Per contra, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that petitioner was never

appointed as Member of Juvenile Justice
Board, and the Child Welfare Committee, in
which she served as Member, is constituted

under Chapter-V of Section 27 of the

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015, while Juvenile Justice

Board is established under Chapter–III of

the
said
Act.
He,
thus,
submits
that
petitioner servingas Member,Child Welfare

Committee for two terms does not make her ineligible for appointment as Member, Juvenile Justice Board.
(16) This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The services rendered by petitioner as Member, Child Welfare Committee will not come in the way of her appointment as Member, Juvenile Justice Board. Since petitioner was found to be the most meritorious candidate by the Selection Committee, therefore, she has a preferential right of appointment compared to other candidates who were placed below her in the panel. Thus, petitioner was entitled for appointment as Member, Juvenile Justice Board, which has wrongly been denied to her.
(17) Learned counsel for private respondents points out that respondent no. 4 has been removed from the post of Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar, which has resulted in creation of one vacancy.
(18) In view of the aforesaid discussion, writ petition is allowed. The Competent Authority is directed to appoint petitioner as Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 04.06.2024 Aswal

Committee for two terms does not make her
ineligible
for
appointment
as
Member,
Juvenile Justice Board.

(16) This
Court
finds
substance
in
the
submission made by learned counsel for the
petitioner.
The
services
rendered
by
petitioner
as
Member,
Child
Welfare
Committee will not come in the way of her
appointment as Member, Juvenile Justice
Board. Since petitioner was found to be the
most meritorious candidate by the Selection
Committee, therefore, she has a preferential
right of appointment compared to other
candidates who were placed below her in the
panel. Thus, petitioner was entitled for
appointment as Member, Juvenile Justice
Board, which has wrongly been denied to
her.

(17) Learned
counsel
for
private
respondents points out that respondent no.
4 has been removed from the post of
Member, Juvenile Justice Board, Udham
Singh Nagar, which has resulted in creation
of one vacancy.

(18) In view of the aforesaid discussion, writ
petition is allowed. The Competent Authority
is directed to appoint petitioner as Member,
Juvenile Justice Board, Udham Singh Nagar
within
four
weeks
from
the
date
of
production of certified copy of this order.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
04.06.2024
Aswal

Medini Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Women'S Empowernemnt of Child Development Section - 2 Dehrad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Medini Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Women'S Empowernemnt of Child Development Section - 2 Dehrad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

District Committee, Center of Indian Trade Union Haridwar Vs Registrar Trade Unions / Labour Commissioner Uttarakhad

Rajesh Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Abdul Javad Vs Director Rehabilitation/ District Magistrate Tehri Garhwal

Dilshad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Centre of Indian Trade Unions Vs Presiding Officer Central Govt Industrial Tribunal

Sri Nakli Singh Vs District Magistrate Haridwar