Jharkhand High Court
Baby Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 6 September, 2010
Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR JHAR R 93, (2010) 96 ALLINDCAS 697 (JHA) (2010) 4 JCR 369 (JHA), (2010) 4 JCR 369 (JHA)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 3810 of 2010
Baby Kumari ...... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Another ...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
For the Petitioner : M/s Manoj Tandon, Kumari Rashmi &
Shiv Shankar Kumar, Advocates
For the Respondents: J.C. to G.P.III
......
th
03/Dated: 6 September, 2010
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present
petition has been preferred because of inaction on the part of the
respondents in not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner for the post
of Lady Supervisor on the ground that when the petitioner was appointed as
Anganwari Sewika, she was below the age of 18 years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
petitioner was initially appointed as Anganwari Sewika. She worked several
years on the said post and thereafter, the new advertisement was published
by the respondents for altogether another post of Lady Supervisor.
Applications were invited on 13th November, 2007, for the Post of Lady
Supervisor. The petitioner applied for the said post and the petitioner was
duly qualified and eligible for the appointment of Lady Supervisor. The
Advertisement is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition. Thereafter, the
petitioner was successful candidate in all the tests taken by the respondents.
The petitioner was also selected as a Lady Supervisor. It is also submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the only reason assigned for not
giving appointment letter to the petitioner is that when the petitioner was
appointed on some other post i.e. Anganwari Sewika, she was below the age
of 18 years. In fact, looking to the advertisement, there was no such
condition, at all, attached or there was no such eligibility or criteria attached
for the selection of Lady Supervisor. The only requirement for the applicant
to be selected for the post of Lady Supervisor is that the applicant should be
Anganwari Sewika. and that candidate should have ten years' working
experience as Anganwari Sewika, if a candidate is Graduate in any faculty,
or 15 Years' experience as Anganwari Sewika, if a candidate is Matriculate.
The petitioner is falling within the first category. The petitioner was working
as Anganwari Sewika from 14th July, 1984, and she is Graduate and,
2.
therefore, as on date, application for the post of Lady Supervisor, the
petitioner was duly eligible and qualified as she was appointed as
Anganwari Sewika in the year, 1984, and having experience of 10 years with
graduation and, therefore, the reason assigned by the respondents that
though she is, otherwise, fully qualified and eligible and selected also for the
post of Lady Supervisor, the petitioner cannot be appointed as Lady
Supervisor because when the petitioner appointed as Anganwari Sewika,
she was less than 18 years of age. This ground cannot be added as a criteria
after the whole selection process is over. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported
in 2002(1) J.C.R. Page No. 301, especially, upon Paragraph Nos. 5 & 6
thereof.
3. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the post
of Lady Supervisor is altogether a different post. Post of Lady Supervisor is
not a promotional post of Anganwari Sewika and, therefore, the reason
given by the respondents that even though the petitioner is otherwise
qualified, eligible and selected for the post of Lady Supervisor, cannot be
appointed because she was less than 18 years of age, when she was
appointed, as Anganwari Sewika, is not tenable at law because post of
Anganwari Sewika is different and distinct post. This ground is no ground in
the eyes of law. Moreover, such criteria cannot be added subsequently and,
therefore, let a writ of mandamus be issued by this Court upon respondents
to appoint the petitioner as Lady Supervisor, who has already been selected
by the competent respondentauthorities.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents
State, who has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari
Sewika and her age was less than 18 years and, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be appointed as Lady Supervisor though she is selected by the
respondentauthorities as Lady Supervisor by the appropriate committee,
appointed by the respondents, and, therefore, she has not been given
appointment.
5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed on the
following facts and reasons:
3.
(I) It appears that the present petitioner was working honestly,
sincerely and diligently as Anganwari Sewika with effect from 14th
July, 1984 and to the satisfaction of the respondents. Never any
objection was raised by the State authorities that her appointment is
illegal as Anganwari Sewika. Never any show cause notice was issued
by the respondents to the petitioner that when she was appointed as
Anganwari Sewika, she was not legally qualified to be appointed as
Anganwari Sewika. Thus, she was working with full knowledge of
respondents as Anganwari Sewika with effect from 14th July, 1984
onwards, for a period of more than two decades.
(ii) It appears from the facts of the case that Public Advertisement
was issued for the post of Lady Supervisor on 13 th November, 2007.
The said Public Advertisement is at Annexure1 to the memo of the
petition. This post of Lady Supervisor is altogether a different,
distinct, separate and independent post. The eligibility criteria for the
post of Lady Supervisor is ten years' experience as Anganwari
Sewika, if a candidate is Graduate or 15 years' experience as
Anganwari Sewika, if the candidate is Matriculate. The petitioner is
falling in the first criteria.
(iii) It appears that in pursuance of the said Public Advertisement
dated 13th November, 2007, the petitioner applied for the post of
Lady Supervisor, as she was already having appropriate qualification
and eligibility. The last candidate selected has secured 142 marks
whereas, the petitioner has secured 156 marks and she was among
top five candidates. The statement to this effect made in the writ
petition have not been denied in the counter affidavit.
(iv) It appears from the facts of the case that the present petitioner
is not given appointment only for the reason that when the petitioner
was appointed as Anganwari Sewika, she has not completed 18 years
of age as is evident from para5 of the counter affidavit. This reason
can not be assigned by the respondents to the petitioner. No such
criteria was pointed out in the Public Advertisement. The whole
selection process is now over. The petitioner has undergone whole
selection process for the post of Lady Supervisor. Looking to the
4.
Public Advertisement which is at Annexure1 inviting applications
th
from the candidates dated 13 November, 2007, it appears that the
post of Lady Supervisor is altogether a different post from the post of
Anganwari Sewika. It is not a promotional post of a Anganwari
Sewika, and for a totally new post, Public Advertisement has been
issued. The petitioner applied and thereafter, selected and now a
new criteria cannot be added by the respondents after the whole
selection process is over.
(v) No reason has been given to the petitioner by the respondents
that why after her selection as Lady Supervisor, she is not appointed
as such. The petitioner is kept in total dark and, therefore, she is
compelled to file writ petition. Now the reasons are coming in the
counteraffidavit that one more criteria was added later on.
(vi) Similar petition has also been decided by this Court vide order
dated 15th January, 2010 in W. P. (S) No. 3527 of 2008 wherein, it has
been held by this Court that the criteria added by the respondents
subsequently i.e. after the selection process is over is not permissible
in the eyes of law.
(vii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Maharashtra State Road Corporation & Ors. V. Rajendra Bhimrao
Mandve & Ors, as reported in 2002(1) J.C.R. Page301, especially in
Paragraph Nos. 5 & 6, relevant portion of which are as under:
"5 .............................Instead, it would have been well open
to the High Court to have declared that the criteria sought to be
fixed by the Circular dated 24.6.1996 as the sole determinative
of the merit or grade of a candidate for selection long after the
last date fixed for receipt of application and in the middle of the
course of selection process (since in this case the Driving Test was
stated to have been conducted on 27.11.1995) cannot be applied
to the selections under consideration and challenged before the
High Court. It has been repeatedly held by this Court that the
games of the rules meaning thereby, that the criteria for selection
cannot be altered by the authorities concerned in the middle or
after the process of selection has commenced.
6. We have held that the Circular Orders dated 24.6.1996
will have no relevance or application to the selections in
question, undertaken pursuant to the advertisement issued on
20.9.1995........................."
(Emphasis supplied) 5.
(viii) In view of the aforesaid decision also, once the selection process is over and candidate is selected for a particular post, no new criteria can be added by the State authorities so as to thwart the selection of the present petitioner.
6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as Lady Supervisor and the reason assigned by the respondents is not a valid reason, in the eyes of law and is, hereby, quashed and set aside and I hereby, direct the concerned respondentsState or such other authority, more particularly, respondent no. 2 to appoint the present petitioner as Lady Supervisor with immediate effect.
7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and disposed of.
(D.N. Patel, J.) VK