Gujarat High Court
Ashaben Panchabhai Parmar vs District Development Officer & 4 on 19 February, 2016
Author: J.B.Pardiwala
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala
C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9042 of 2015
with
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12547 of 2015
==========================================================
ASHABEN PANCHABHAI PARMAR....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER & 4....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SHIVANG J SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. VACHA DESAI, AGP - ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP/PP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
MR N S PARMAR, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR VIMAL A PUROHIT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 19/02/2016
ORAL ORDER
By this writ-application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow he present application.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to vacate the adinterim relief granted by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.06.2015 in the aforementioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.9042 of 2015 (C) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. The facts of this case may be summarized as under:-
2.1 The respondent No.2 - Child Development Scheme Officer issued a public Page 1 of 12 HC-NIC Page 1 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER advertisement for the purpose of recruitment of Anganwadi Workers in the set-up of the Banaskantha District Panchayat. The advertisement dated 20.12.2014 is annexed at page 24 (Annexure "C" to this petition).
2.2 It appears from the materials on record that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.4 applied for being appointed as Anganwadi Worker. At the end of the process, the petitioner was given the appointment order dated 6.4.2015 at page 9 (Annexure "B" to this petition).
2.3 The respondent No.4 preferred a representation addressed to the concerned authorities as regards the legality and validity of the appointment of the petitioner on the post. The authorities considered the representation of the respondent No.4 and realized that a very serious mistake was committed in issuing the appointment order in favour of the petitioner.
2.4 In fact, according to the chart prepared by the Committee, which is at page 26 (Annexure "D" to this petition), the respondent No.4 has been placed in the first position, whereas the petitioner has been placed in the second position. The details incorporated in the chart makes the picture abundantly clear. To the aforesaid extent, even the petitioner has not disputed. The authorities thought fit to rectify the mistake and accordingly, the appointment order issued in favour of the petitioner was recalled and the respondent No.4 has been appointed on the said post.
3. Being dis-satisfied, the petitioner has come up with this writ-application.
4. It appears that while issuing notice, ad-interim relief in terms of para 8(B) was also granted.
5. Mr. Shivang Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the action of the authorities in recalling the appointment order issued in favour of his client, and thereby appointing the respondent No.4 on the post of Anganwadi Page 2 of 12 HC-NIC Page 2 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER Worker, deserves to be quashed solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. According to Mr. Shukla, before cancelling the appointment order, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The second limb of submission is that his client is more meritorious, as she possesses a CCC Certificate, whereas the respondent No.4 does not possess such certificate. In such circumstances referred to above, he prays that the termination order dated 30th May, 2015 be quashed and the authorities be directed to reappoint the petitioner on the post.
6. On the other hand, this application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Mehul Patel, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Vimal Purohit, the learned advocate for the respondent No.4, and submitted that no error, not to speak any error of law could be said to have been committed by the authorities in cancelling the appointment. The learned counsel would submit that since the error was apparent on the face of the record, the authorities were justified in rectifying the same. The counsel would further submit that the certificate of CCC has no bearing as such. The counsel further submitted that the preliminary objection, or rather the principal argument of violation of the principles of natural justice, also does not deserve any merit.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief.
8. I take notice of the fact that a detailed affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2, duly affirmed by the Child Development Project Officer, Deesa, inter-alia making the following averments.
"3. The Government of India has evolved a Scheme known as Integrated Child Development Scheme and it is implemented through out the country by the State Governments. It is stated that Anganwadies are established for implementation of the Scheme meant for children and pregnant women. It is most respectfully stated that there are in all 3365 Anganwadies in the District of Banaskantha alone. The respondent No.2 humbly states that Anganwadi workers and helpers are selected and appointed on honarary basis to Page 3 of 12 HC-NIC Page 3 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER administer the Anganwadies.
4. The respondent No.2 craves leave to submit that the Government of Gujarat, through Women and Child Development Department has issued Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009 for laying down the criteria for selection of Anganwadi workers and helpers on honorary basis and a copy thereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "A". It is pertinent to note that minimum educational qualification is also provided therein. The respondent No.2 further states that thereafter through another Resolution dated 16.9.2011, it is resolved that a Committee headed by Dy. Collector would select Anganwadi workers and helpers for Anganwadi Centers and a copy of Resolution is annexed herewith and marked as Annexcure "B".
5. The respondent No.2 submits that in the Anganwadi at village Nani Gharnal, Taluka Deesa, District Banaskantha, as a post of Honorary Anganwadi Worker was lying vacant, it was thought fit to publish an advertisement inviting applications from the eligible candidates and a copy of advertisement published on 20.12.2014 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "C". It is stated that in all three applications were received in response to the said advertisement and present petitioner as well as respondent No.4 were among the applicants. The respondent No.2 submits that all the three candidates were instructed to attend interview before the Committee on 23.1.2015 and after interviewing the candidates i.e. present petitioner as well as respondent No.4 and one Ms. Varshaben D. Prajapati, a comparative statement was prepared by the Committee and a copy there of is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "D". It is submitted that the Committee thereafter prepared a Rojkam selecting the present petitioner for the post of Honorary Anganwadi worker and a copy of Rojkam is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "E". It is stated that a proposal was forwarded to the District Development Officer, Banaskantha District Panchayat and it was sanctioned on 1.4.2015 and thereupon the petitioner was issued appointment order on 6.4.2015, and a copy thereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "F". It is pertinent to note that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary, adhoc and honorary basis without conferring any rights and a copy of the said appointment order is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "G". The petitioner immediately thereafter reported for work on 9.4.2015. It is submitted that however, immediately thereafter present respondent No.4 objected to her appointment through an application dated 10.4.2015 on the ground that she was more qualified than the petitioner and a copy of her application is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "H".
6. The respondent No.2 submits that immediately a letter dated 30.4.2015 duly signed by the Chairman of the Committee as well as two members was addressed to the District Development Officer, Banaskantha District Panchayat, clarifying that as such Ashaben Rameshbhai Prajapati was secured position No.1 on the basis of her educational qualification and the petitioner was to be placed on waiting list and therefore, necessary Page 4 of 12 HC-NIC Page 4 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER permission be granted and a copy of said letter forwarded to the District Development Officer, Banaskantha along with comparative statement is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "I".
7. The respondent No.2 submits that considering the error committed by the Selection Committee it was thought fit to request the District Development Officer, Banaskantha District Panchayat to make necessary amendment and a copy of the order dated 28.5.2015 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "J". It is stated that immediately thereafter the petitioner herein was relieved through an order dated 30.5.2015 and through another letter of even date the respondent No.4 herein was appointed and copies of said letters are annexed herewith and marked as Annexures "K" and "L" respectively. It is stated that immediately thereafter petitioner was relieved and the respondent No.4 has taken over as Honorary Anganwadi Worker on 2.6.2015, and a copy thereof is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure "M". It is submitted that a copy of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court on 3.6.2015 was served upon the respondent No.2 on 4.6.2015. It is stated that immediately thereafter necessary actions are taken to relieve the respondent No.4 and allowed the petitioner to work as Honorary Anganwadi Worker as the order on 3.6.2015 to continue the petitioner in service.
8. The respondent No.2 submits that the grievances raised by the petitioner are not at all substantive as the petitioner herein has secured only 58% marks in HSC examination, while the respondent No.4 secured 64.67% marks in HSC examination. In other words, the respondent No.4 is more meritorious on the ground that she has secured more marks than the present petitioner in Standard XII examination. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner herein who has passed the CCC examination cannot place reliance to substantiate her case that she is more qualified. It is stated that passing of CCC examination is not an educational qualification and therefore, her case for appointment as Anganwadi Worker on the basis of higher education cannot be entertained.
9. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, prayer is made not to grant any interim relief and reject the present Special Civil Application in limine with cost in the interest of justice."
9. I also take notice of the fact that the respondent No.4 has also filed a detailed affidavit-in-reply, inter-alia stating as under:-
"5. It is the say and submission of the present respondent No.4 that, thereafter, the respondent No.2 has forwarded a letter dated 30.04.2015 to the respondent No.1 regarding sanctioning of the selection list and waiting list made by earlier committee on dated 23.01.2015. Further in the aforesaid letter, it was transcribed that, by verifying the selection list on the base of merit, it came into the knowledge of the respondent No.2 that, the grave mistake has been caused into the said selection done by the members of the committee. It was further recommended by the respondent Page 5 of 12 HC-NIC Page 5 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER No.2 in the aforesaid letter that, as the respondent No.4 is eligible as the first place into the selection list and the present petitioner does come into the waiting list. The copy of the letter dated 30.04.2015 forwarded by respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURER3 to this reply.
6. It is the say and submission of the respondent No.4 that, thereafter, the respondent No.3, vide dated 28.05.2015, forwarded a letter to the respondent No.2 by considering the letter dated 30.04.2015 for carrying out necessary amendments into the list. It is further say and submission of the respondent No.4 that, on basis of the aforesaid letter dated 28.05.2015, it was directed to implement towards sanctioning of the new selection list. Therefore, as per new selection list, the present respondent No.4 was selected as the Anganwadi Worker at the first place into the selection list and the present petitioner, respectively, selected as the first place into the waiting list. The copy of the final selection list of dated 28.05.2015 forwarded by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.2 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURER4 to this reply.
7. It is the say and submission of the respondent No.4 that, by considering two letter the first letter dated 30.04.2015 for constituting new committee for amendment into the selection list and waiting list and second letter dated 28.05.2015 for sanctioning final selection list and waiting list, therefore the respondent No.3 has vide letter dated 30.05.2015 passed communication letter for relieving the present petitioner from her honorary post as Anganwadi Worker. The copy of the impugned order dated 30.05.2015 is annexed and marked as ANNEXURE R5 to this reply.
8. It is the say and submission of the respondent No.4 that, thereafter, as and when the post of the Anganwadi Worker vacated on the basis of the communication dated 30.05.2015, on the same day i.e. 30.05.2015, the respondent No.2 had issued the appointment letter to the respondent No.4. The copy of the appointment letter dated 30.05.2015 of the respondent No.4 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURER6 to this reply. Therefore on dated 02.06.2015, the present respondent No.4 had remained present on duty. The copy of the letter dated 02.06.2015 forwarded by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.4 to remain present on duty is annexed and marked as ANNEXURER7 to this reply.
9. It is hereby denied by the respondent No.4 as it is contended by the petitioner in paraC of the ground that, she is possessing qualification of HSC with degree in computer and is more qualified than respondent No.4. It is the say and submission of the present respondent No.4 that, while perusing the merit list, it is clearly transcribed that the respondent No.4 possesses more passing marks which converted into the percentages as 64.67%. On the other hand, the present petitioner possesses the marks Page 6 of 12 HC-NIC Page 6 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER converted into the percentages as 58%. In other words, the present respondent No.4 is more meritorious on the ground that she has secured more marks than the present petitioner in Standard - XII examination.
10. It is the say and submission of the present respondent No.4 that, the petitioner who has passed the CCC examination cannot place reliance to substantiate her case that she is more qualified. It is further the say and submission of the respondent No.4 that, passing of CCC examination for the eligibility into the post of Anganwadi Workers is of of no avail, as it is nowhere mentioned even into the concerned advertisement for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker, published by the respondent No.2 as of having CCC examination. Therefore, the contention raised by the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker on the basis of higher education cannot be entertained. The copy of the advertisement for the post of Anganwadi Worker published by respondent No.2 is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURER8 to this reply.
11. It is hereby denied the contention raised by the petitioner in paraD of the ground that subsequent revision of lists suffers from the vice of malafide and favoritism and nepotism. It is the say and submission of the Respondent No.4 that, the present petitioner was not qualified as the Anganwadi Worker as per the both the new merit list as well as old merit list. Therefore, appointment given by the authority on the basis of inadvertence or mistake in considering selection list may not be taken into the grievance.
12. It is the say and submission of the present respondent No.4 on basis of the aforesaid reasons and contention that the present respondent No.4 may kindly be restored into her service back as per the appointment letter dated 30.05.2015 issued by the respondent No.2."
10. The first point for my consideration is whether the impugned order, or action, should be quashed on the argument of violation of the principles of natural justice. As observed by me, it is not in dispute that the respondent No.4 was found to be more meritorious in all respects by the Committee. She was placed at No.1 position, whereas the petitioner was placed at the No.2 position. It is also evident from the chart that the respondent No.4 secured 64.67% marks in Standard XII, whereas the petitioner secured 58% marks. The case in hand appears to be one of a silly mistake committed by the authorities. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi- alteram-partem is one of the basic pillar of the natural justice, which means no one should be condemned unheard. At the same time, a Court of law may not insist on compliance of a useless formality. Having regard to the materials on record, I am of Page 7 of 12 HC-NIC Page 7 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER the view that asking the authorities to hear the petitioner and then pass a fresh order, will be nothing but an empty formality. In this regard, I may quote with profit a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Sonkar Vs. Union of India 2007 (4) SCC 54, wherein the following observations are made in paras 26 to 37.
"26. This bring us to the question as to whether the principles of natural justice were required to be complied with. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the audi alteram partem is one of the basic pillar of natural justice which means no one should be condemned unheard. However, whenever possible the principle of natural justice should be followed. Ordinarily in a case of this nature the same should be complied with. Visitor may in a given situation issue notice to the employee who would be effected by the ultimate order that may be passed. He may not be given an oral hearing, but may be allowed to make a representation in writing.
27. It is also, however, well-settled that it cannot be put any straight jacket formula. It may not be in a given case applied unless a prejudice is shown. It is not necessary where it would be a futile exercise.
28. A court of law does not insist on compliance of useless formality. It will not issue any such direction where the result would remain the same, in mview of the fact situation prevailing or in terms of the legal consequences. Furthermore in this case, the selection of the appellant was illegal. He was not qualified on the cut off date. Being ineligible to be considered for appointment, it would have been a futile exercise to give him an opportunity of being heard.
29. In Aligarh Muslim University and Others v. Mansoor Ali Khan [(2000) 7 SCC 529], the law is stated in the following terms :
"25. The useless formality theory, it must be noted, is an exception. Apart from the class of cases of admitted or indisputable facts leading only to one conclusion referred to above, there has been considerable debate on the application of that theory in other cases. The divergent mviews expressed in regard to this theory have been elaborately considered by this Court in M.C. Mehta referred to above. This Court surveyed the views expressed in various judgments in England by Lord Reid, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Woolf, Lord Bingham, Megarry, J. and Straughton, L.J. etc. in various cases and also views expressed by leading writers like Profs. Garner, Craig, de Smith, Wade, D.H. Clark etc. Some of them have said that orders passed in violation must always be quashed for otherwise the court will be prejudging the issue. Some others have said that there is no such absolute rule and prejudice must be shown. Yet, some others have applied via media rules. We do not think it necessary in this case to go deeper into these issues. In the ultimate analysis, it may depend on the facts of a particular case.Page 8 of 12
HC-NIC Page 8 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER
30. In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another v. S.G. Kotturappa and Another [(2005) 3 SCC 409], this Court held :
"The question as to what extent, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality. What is needed for the employer in a case of this nature is to apply the objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criteria required for arriving at an objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles of natural justice may not have to be complied with, in view of the fact that the same stood complied with before imposing punishments upon the respondents on each occasion and, thus, the respondents, therefore, could not have improved their stand even if a further opportunity was given"
31. In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Manjeet Singh and Another [(2006) 8 SCC 647], this Court opined :
"The principles of natural justice were also not required to be complied with as the same would have been an empty formality. The court will not insist on compliance with the principles of natural justice in view of the binding nature of the award. Their application would be limited to a situation where the factual position or legal implication arising thereunder is disputed and not where it is not in dispute or cannot be disputed. If only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a violation of the principle of natural justice."
32. In P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and Others [(2006) 8 SCC 776], this Court observed :
"The Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility. It has separate facets. It has in recent time also undergone a sea change."
33. It was further observed :
"Decision of this Court in S.L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan & Ors. [(1980) 4 SCC 379], whereupon Mr. Rao placed strong reliance to contend that non- observance of principle of natural justice itself causes prejudice or the same should not be read "as it causes difficulty of prejudice", cannot be said to be applicable in the instant case. The principles of natural justice, as noticed hereinbefore, has undergone a sea change. In view of the decision of this Court in State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. S.K. Sharma [(1996) 3 SCC 364] and Rajendra Singh vs. State of Page 9 of 12 HC-NIC Page 9 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER M.P. [(1996) 5 SCC 460], the principle of law is that some real prejudice must have been caused to the complainant. The Court has shifted from its earlier concept that even a small violation shall result in the order being rendered a nullity. To the principal doctrine of audi alterem partem, a clear distinction has been laid down between the cases where there was no hearing at all and the cases where there was mere technical infringement of the principal. The Court applies the principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case. It is not applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. It is no unruly horse. It cannot be put in a straightjacket formula. [See Viveka Nand Sethi vs. Chairman, J. & K. Bank Ltd. & Ots. (2005) 5 SCC 337 and State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi & Ors. JT 2006 (1) SC
19. See also Mohd. Sartaj vs. State of U.P. (2006) 1 SCALE 265.]"
34. The principles of equity in a case of this nature, in our opinion, will have no role to play. Sympathy, as is well-known, should not be misplaced.
35. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal & Others. [(2005) 2 SCC 638], a Division Bench of this Court, wherein one of us was a member, noticing some decisions, observed :
"44. While construing a statute, sympathy has no role to play. This Court cannot interpret the provisions of the said Act ignoring the binding decisions of the Constitution Bench of this Court only by way of sympathy to the workmen concerned.
45. In A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop. Societies this Court rejected a similar contention upon noticing the following judgments: (SCC pp. 131-32, paras 68-70)
68. In a case of this nature this Court should not even exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India on misplaced sympathy.
69. In Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh it is stated: (SCC p. 144, paras 36-37)
36. We have no doubt in our mind that sympathy or sentiment by itself cannot be a ground for passing an order in relation whereto the appellants miserably fail to establish a legal right. It is further trite that despite an extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction contained in Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily would not pass an order which would be in contravention of a statutory provision.
37. As early as in 1911, Farewell, L.J. in Latham v. Richard Johnson & Nephew Ltd. observed: (All ER p. 123 E) We must be very careful not to allow our sympathy with the infant plaintiff to affect our judgment. Sentiment is a dangerous will o the wisp to take as a guide Page 10 of 12 HC-NIC Page 10 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER in the search for legal principles.
70. Yet again, recently in Ramakrishna Kamat v. State of Karnataka this Court rejected a similar plea for regularisation of services stating: (SCC pp. 377-78, para 7) We repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the appellants on what basis or foundation in law the appellants made their claim for regularisation andunder what rules their recruitment was made so as to govern their service conditions. They were not in a position to answer except saying that the appellants have been working for quite some time in various schools started pursuant to resolutions passed by Zila Parishads in view of the government orders and that their cases need to be considered sympathetically. It is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge and looking to the very directions given, a very sympathetic view was taken. We do not find it either just or proper to show any further sympathy in the given facts and circumstances of the case. While being sympathetic to the persons who come before the court the courts cannot at the same time be unsympathetic to the large number of eligible persons waiting for a long time in a long queue seeking employment."
36. It is not a case where appointment was irregular. If an appointment is irregular, the same can be regularized. The court may not take serious note of an irregularity within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. But if an appointment is illegal, it is non est in the eye of law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity.
37. We have noticed hereinbefore that in making appointment of the appellant, the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and statutory rules were not complied with. The appointment, therefore, was illegal and in that view of the matter, it would be wholly improper for us to invoke our equity jurisdiction."
11. The Supreme Court drew a fine distinction between an irregular appointment and an illegal appointment. The Court observed that if an appointment is illegal, it is non-est in the eye of law, which renders the appointment to be a nullity. Thus, in view of the above, the first contention of Mr. Shukla as regards the rule of audi- alteram-partem is rejected.
12. So far as the second submission of Mr. Shukla is concerned, as regards the educational qualifications, it may be true that the petitioner may be holding a CCC Examination certificate, but that would not make any difference because in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Child Development Project Officer, it has been Page 11 of 12 HC-NIC Page 11 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016 C/SCA/9042/2015 ORDER explained that the passing of the CCC Examination is not one of the required educational qualifications for the purpose of appointment of an Anganwadi Worker.
13. In the overall view of the matter, I am not convinced by the case put up by the petitioner. In the result, this application fails and is hereby rejected. Notice is discharged. Ad-interim order stands vacated. The authorities are directed to proceed further with passing of appropriate order of appointment on the post in question, in accordance with law.
14. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the connected Civil Application is also disposed of.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J.) Mohandas Page 12 of 12 HC-NIC Page 12 of 12 Created On Sun Feb 21 03:11:19 IST 2016