Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Seema Kamle vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 August, 2023

Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas

Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas

                                                                                                NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     WPS No. 5333 of 2023
   1. Seema Kamle D/o. Baisakhu Ram Kamle, Aged About 38 Years R/o. House
      No. 485, Mangala, P.S. - Civil Line, Tashil And District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
   2. Purnima Devdas, W/o. Prem Lal Devdas, Aged About 54 Years R/o. Raja
      Chowk, Bhalesar, Kanekara District - Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh.
   3. Sharda Devi Kaushik, W/o. Ram Kumar, Aged About 47 Years R/o. Village
      Deorikhurd, P.O. Kathakoni, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.
   4. Gulabwati, W/o. Shankar Prasad, Aged About 47 Years R/o. School Para,
      Salka, Khadgawan, Dewadana, Kroiya, Chhattisgarh.
   5. Kamna Shrivastava, D/o. Vijay Bahadur Shrivastava, Aged About 48 Years R/o.
      Triloki Nagar, Doman Hill, Sonawani Colly, Koriya, Chhattisgarh.
                                                                                      ---- Petitioners
                                               Versus
   1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Women And Child Development
      Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   2. The Director, Office Of The Directorate, Women And Child Development
      Department, Indravati Bhawan, Block -1, Second Floor, Atal Nagar, New
      Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
   3. The Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, North Block
      Sector -19, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents


 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For petitioners : Mr. S.B. Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondent/State : Mrs. Hamida Siddiqui, Dy. A.G For respondent No.3 : Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas.

Order on Board (08-08-2023)

1. By filing this writ petition the petitioners have assailed the press advertisement (Annexure P1) issued by the respondent No.3 on the count that there is no reservation provided for Anganwadi Karyakarta who is working with the Department.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the respondents had issued advertisement No 2023-24 for appointment on the post of Supervisor and in the said advertisement Open Direct Recruitment and Limited Direct Recruitment has been provided, but 2 unfortunately, in clause 1.2 in the advertisement Anganwadi Karyakarta has not been mentioned.

3. Learned State counsel would refer to the Recruitment Rules 2023 known as Chhattisgarh Women and Child Development Department Executive Class III (Non-Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules 202 (for short, the Rules 2023). Rule 6 of the Rules 2023 deals with the method of recruitment which reads as under:

""6. Method of recruitment- (1) Recruitment to the service, after the commencement of these rules,s hall be made by the following methods namely-
(a) for the post of Supervisors, out of total vacancies 50% of the posts shall be filled by competitive examination held for open direct recruitment;
(b) 50% of remained vacancies shall be filled by competitive examination held for limited direct recruitment from "Anganwadi Workers"

4. From perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it is quite vivid that it has been clearly mentioned in the Rule 6 of the Rules 2023 that 50% of remained vacancies shall be filled by competitive examination held for limited direct recruitment from Anganwadi Workers.

5. It is well settled position of law that if there is ambiguity/mistake in the advertisement, the recruitment rules will prevail. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ashish Kumar vs. State of UP, reported in 2018 (3) SCC 55 has considered this issue.

6. Considering this aspect of this matter, I do not find any perversity or illegality to interfere in the recruitment process. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Narendra Kumar Vyas) JUDGE Raju