Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Sunita Meena vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 7 April, 2010
Author: Prakash Tatia
Bench: Prakash Tatia
1
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3465/2010
Smt. Sunita Meena
vs
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of Order: 7.4.2010
HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J.
Mr.Ram Prakash Prajapat, for the petitioner.
<><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that she was selected for the post of Aganwadi Worker and earlier she was working on the post of Asha Sahayogi. Her case was recommended vide resolution dated 3.12.2009 passed by the Gram Panchayat. In view of the said selection she resigned from the post of Asha Sahayogi then again matter was considered and 3 names were recommended by resolution dated 18.3.2010. The petitioner a member of ST was entitled to appointment in view of the clause 6 of the Scheme, copy of which has been placed on record as Annex.8. It is submitted that the respondent no.4 has been given appointment vide order dated 19.3.2010 ignoring the condition no.6 of the scheme Annex.8.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the scheme Annex.8 dated 15.9.2009 as well as the resolution dated 18.3.2010. It is not in dispute that petitioner is 10th passed whereas the respondent no.4 Suman Chashta is Graduate. The only 2 claim of the petitioner is that is that since she is member of ST, therefore, she should have been given preference even if the respondent had better educational qualification. It is submitted that as per the condition no.6, the preference can be given in order as given in clause no.6 and a member of general class comes in the last category. It is submitted that the better educational qualification is no ground for seeking appointment even on the basis of judging the suitability.
I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and found that in the scheme it is provided that when there are eligible candidates are not available then the preference will be given to candidate with higher educational qualification, which is apparent from condition no.2,4 and 5. It is true that the eligibility is only secondary class pass, but that eligibility makes a person eligible for consideration and, thereafter, the suitability is required to be judged and if a better suitable candidate is available for doing job of Aganwadi then that merit cannot be compromised and that is not permissible in the scheme.
In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
[PRAKASH TATIA], J.
cpgoyal/-