Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1056 (ORI)

MAMATA DAS v. STATE OF ORISSA

2008-11-24

B.N.MAHAPATRA, B.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
JUDGMENT : DR. B.S. Chauahan, C.J. - This appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge dated 21.9.2007 by which the Learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner/Appellant. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the case are that in pursuance of the advertisement dated 4.5.2007 for selection of Anganwadi Worker, the Appellant and Respondent No. 4 and one another filed applications. Respondent No. 4 had been selected. Being aggrieved, a representation was filed before the District Collector by the Appellant on the ground that Respondent No. 4 got married on 15.5.2007. The last date of making the application was 18.5.2007. She submitted her application on 18.5.2007 without annexing a copy of the residence certificate, but made an application that she would file the certificate of residence by next day. She submitted the Certificate of Residence on 19.5.2007. Therefore, her application ought not to have been considered as she did not annex the Certificate of Residence by 18.5.2007. As the representation submitted by the Appellant was not decided, she preferred Writ Petition Nos. 6860 of 2007 which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and Order Dated 19.6.2007 directing the District Collector to dispose of the said representation by a speaking order. Pursuant to that direction, the said representation was disposed of vide Order Dated 27.7.2007 rejecting the representation on the ground that there was no material error in the process of selection. 3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant preferred Writ Petition Nos. 11402 of 2007 which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment Order Dated 21.9.2007. Hence this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. Satpathy advanced the same arguments which had been advanced on behalf of the Appellant before the District Collector as well as before the Learned Single Judge. The grievance of the Appellant is that Respondent No. 4 could not be treated as resident of that village in spite of her marriage on 15.5.2007 as she failed to produce the certificate of marriage by 18.5.2007. 5. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4, Mr. P.K. Rath and Mr. P.K. Satpathy have contended that the Appellant does not dispute that the marriage took place on 15.5.2007 and once the marriage is solemnized, the wife is bound to be the natural resident of the same village. 5. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4, Mr. P.K. Rath and Mr. P.K. Satpathy have contended that the Appellant does not dispute that the marriage took place on 15.5.2007 and once the marriage is solemnized, the wife is bound to be the natural resident of the same village. This fact has been appreciated by the District Collector as well as by the Learned Single Judge. Thus, the judgment and order under challenge do not require any interference. 6. We have considered the rival submission made by the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the post of Anganwadi Worker is not a service and it is a job of voluntary worker. It is evident from the guidelines issued by the authorities that the candidates must have qualification of Matric. The guidelines or the advertisement did not state that in case the application form was not complete, it would be rejected or the candidature of the said applicant will not be considered. Admittedly, Respondent No. 4 had submitted her application within the date fixed as per the advertisement itself. Therefore, the Appellant cannot have any grievance of such technicality. 8. There can be no dispute to the settled legal proposition that the selection process comes into existence on the date the applications are invited and any person eligible on the last of submission of the application, has a right to be considered against the said vacancy provided he fulfils the requisite qualification, therefore, the eligibility criteria to be applied in any selection process,is the law existing on the last date of submission of the applications. 9. In Y.V. Rangaiah and Others Vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others, ; A.A. Calton Vs. Director of Education and Another, ; P. Ganeshwar Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, ; and P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that candidates have to be assessed for selection as per the eligibility criteria and Rules existing on the date of advertisement of vacancies for the reason that selection process starts with advertisement and all those persons who apply in response to the same, would be eligible to be considered strictly in accordance with the then existing law. If the Rules have been amended subsequent to the date of advertisement, the same shall not be applicable to fill up the said vacancies. 10. The Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others held as under:? It is well settled that suitability and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless, of course, the notification calling for applications itself specifies such a date. 11. In U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Another Vs. Alpana the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering a large number of its earlier Judgments, held that eligibility conditions should be examined as on last date for receipt of applications by the Commission though that was a case where result of a candidate was declared subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as the result does not relate back to the date of examination and eligibility of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of submission of the applications, a candidate, whose result has not been declared upto the last date of submission of applications, would not be eligible. 12. In State of M.P. and Others Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and Others the Apex Court examined a case where during process of selection, the Rules were amended but subsequently the Commission/ State abandoned the selection process and advertised vacancies afresh to be filled up in accordance with the amendment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the action of the State on the ground that the persons, who had applied earlier, had not acquired any vested right, therefore, the State's action was justified. 13. In Smt Harpal Kaur Chahal v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Anr. 1995 (Suppl) 4 SCC 706, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:? It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules. 14. In State of Rajasthan Vs. It is to be seen that when the recruitment is sought to be made, the last date has been fixed for receipt of the applications, such of those candidates, who possessed of all the qualifications as on that date, alone are eligible to apply for and to be considered for recruitment according to Rules. 14. In State of Rajasthan Vs. R. Dayal and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the case for promotion, held that the eligibility for promotion must be as in the year when the vacancies arose, but that was not a case of direct recruitment. 15. In Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others Vs. Chander Shekhar and Another the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be adjudged with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well established proposition of law. 16. In Dr. Ramulu and another, etc. Vs. Dr. S. Suryaprakash Rao and others the Hon'ble Apex Court considered a large number of its earlier Judgments and held that if the Rules have been amended, person has a right to be considered as per the amended Rules unless his existing rights prior to the amendment have specifically been saved and for the reason that he cannot claim to have acquired any vested right for being considered in accordance with the Rules existing prior to the amendment. 17. In Utkal University Vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi and Others, ; and Gopal Krushna Rath Vs. M.A.A. Baig (Dead) by Lrs. and Others the Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated that the eligibility is to be assessed as per the Rules existing on the last date of submission of the applications. 18. Be that as it may, Learned Counsel for the Appellant has fairly conceded that Respondent No. 4 is more meritorious than the Appellant as the Appellant passed Matriculation in third division. 19. In the fact situation, even if there has been deviation in procedure which is not an error of fundamental nature, no interference is required by the writ Court. The appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. B.N. Mahapatra, J. 20. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed