Allahabad High Court
Smt. Aneeta Devi vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 July, 2022
Author: Sangeeta Chandra
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13078 of 2020 Petitioner :- Smt. Aneeta Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandrachud Pandey,Rajeev Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.05.2020 and 21.05.2020 passed by Child Development Project Officer, District Jhansi and District Programm Officer, District Jhansi respectively and further prays for issuing a direction to the respondent nos. 3 and 4, to appoint the petitioner as Aganwari Karyakarti at Mauja Dineri, Tehsil Tahrauli, District Jhansi in pursuance of advertisement dated 31.01.2011 and her her selection dated 18 June, 2011 made by the respondents.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that she is resident of revenue village Fulkhiriya which belongs to the gram sabha/gram panchayat, Kookargaon and an advertisement was issued on 31st January, 2011 showing the vacancy of one Aganwari Karyakarti in Aganwari Kendra at village Dineri. The petitioner filed her application and a merit list was prepared on 18th June, 2011 by the respondent no. 4 where the petitioner was placed at serial no. 1. The petitioner was called for verification of documents including the domicile certificate, income certificate etc. However, on 4th September, 2012 the government issued an order of cancellation of all sections held in pursuance of advertisement dated 31st January, 2011. Such government order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 11551 of 2013 (Smt. Gyan Wati Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary & Others) wherein this Court delivered judgement and order dated 26th August, 2013. Although it did not quash the government order dated 04.09.2012 entirely it directed the respondents to consider the matter of appointment of Aganwari Karyakartis in the light of selection made according to the procedure already laid down and applicable at the time of occurrence of vacancy without being influenced by any subsequent Government Orders laying down a different procedure or method. The Court observed that the petitioner had a rightful claim for appointment to the post of Aganwari Karyakarti in the light of selection held in pursuance of advertisement dated 31st January, 2011. Liberty was given to the State respondents to examine the genuineness of documents relating to eligibility relied upon by the such candidates.
3. In pursuance of such judgement passed by this Court on 26th August, 2013, the selection held in pursuance of advertisement dated 31st January, 2011 stood revived. The petitioner came to know that one of the candidates whose name was mentioned at serial no. 3 of the same select list dated 18th June, 2011 had filed Writ-A No. 21128 of 2013 and after the judgement rendered by this Court on 26th August, 2013 such writ petition was also disposed of and the respondent no. 4 issued an appointment letter to such candidate on 21st February 2020, the petitioner filed representations when no action was taken the petitioner filed the Writ-A No. 4942 of 2020 (Smt. Aneeta Devi Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file afresh petition. Meantime, on the basis of a report by respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 3 dated 15th May, 2020 the respondent no. 3 passed impugned order says that the petitioner belongs to the village Fulkhiriya and the post of Aganwari Karyakarti was lying vacant in village Dineri and, therefore, she could not appointed.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that gram sabha Kookargaon has three revenue villages namely Kookargaon, Fulkhiriya and Dineri and they constitute one and the same gram panchayat with same Gram Pradhan. Such certificate has also been issued by the Block Development Officer, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No. 10 to the petition. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the advertisement issued inviting an applications with regard to the question of domicile paragraph 3 mentioned that the applicant should be resident of same gram sabha where the Aganwari Kendra is situated. Aslo for Dineri Aganwari Kendra in particular revenue village where the vacancy was proposed to be filled up, a person of same same revenue village would be given preference.
5. It has not been the case of the respondents that some other candidate was found eligible who was living in Revenue village Dineri. Till date the post of Aganwari Karyakarti is lying vacant in the village Dineri.
6. Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of averments made in the counter affidavit states that a Government Order was issued on 16th December, 2003 which provides for appointment of only those persons who are residing in same revenue village. Vacancy was advertised in respect of revenue village Dineri, and therefore, appointment was to be made of a resident of revenue village Dineri only. The petitioner was resident of revenue village Fulkhiriya. With regard to the relevant clause in advertisement issued inviting an applications, the counter affidavit states that the respondent should be resident of same village which means the same revenue village and not the gram panchayat. A revenue village is an independent village whereas a gram panchayat or a gram sabha constitute either a single village or more than one villages.
7. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also pointed out from the counter affidavit that the Government of India has issued the guidelines on 18th October, 2010 mentioned that Aganwari workers should be ideally from the local village who was acceptable to the local community. The Director, Bal Vikas Evam Pusthahar had also issued a said letter in February, 2006 that the applicants should be a resident of same village where the Agwanwari Center is located.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon page 9 of the Rejoinder Affidavit. One Smt. Sunita Devi was resident of a different revenue village from Dineri but which comes under Gaon Sabha Fulkhiriya and she was given an appointment as Aganwari Karyakarti in Aganwari Kendra Dineri on contractual basis in the year 2009. It has been argued on the basis of such document that the same respondent no. 4 had treated a resident of a different revenue village from Dineri in the gaon sabha Fulkhiriya as eligible for appointment as Aganwari Karyakarti in Agawnwari Kendra of village Dineri. It has been argued that respondents have adopted a different standard now in the case of petitioner.
9. This Court has considered the documents on which reliance has been placed upon by learned counsel for the petitioner and finds that it is not a case of respondents in the Counter Affidavit that some other candidate who was found resident of revenue village Dineri had also applied and that she was given preference as belonging to the same village Dineri where the Aganwari Kendra was situated. Till date no suitable candidate from revenue village Dineri has come forward or has been found by the respondents to be eligible to be appointed as Aganwari Karyakarti in Aganwari Kendra of revenue village Dineri.
10. The petitioner belongs to a revenue village which is a part of the same Gaon Sabha kookargaon. This fact has not been denied by the respondent in the counter affidavit.
11. This Court finds that order impugned has taken a hypertechnical view of the matter. The order impugned is set aside.
12. The respondents are directed to issue necessary appointment order in favour of the petitioner as Aganwari Karyakarti for Aganwari Kendra situated in revenue village Dineri within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of thisorder before them.
13. The writ petition stands allowed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2022 Vikram