Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 14 (RAJ)

Yogesh Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan

2011-01-04

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 05.08.2010 (Annexure-6) whereby the petitioner's services were terminated from the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' (worker). 3. As per facts of the case, the respondent Gram Panchayat, Degana initiated proceedings for selection on the post of Aanganwadi Sahayeeka/Karyakarta. For the said purpose, a meeting of the Gram Panchayat, Degana was held on 10.03.2010 in which Resolution No.3 was passed by which the petitioner Smt. Yogesh Kanwar was selected on the post of 'Aanganwadi karyakarta' (worker) whereas the respondent No.5 Smt. Shravani Devi was selected on the post of 'Aanganwadi Sahayeeka' (Assistant). after selection, the petitioner was sent for training and she undergone the said training from 07.05.2010 to 14.05.2010 and thereafter, she was provided appointment or the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' (worker) by the Child Development Officer, Degana. 4. The case of the petitioner is that upon complaint made to the District Collector, Nagaur by respondent No.5-Smt. Shravani Devi, the matter was enquired by the Dy. Director, Women & Child Development Officer, Nagaur sent communication to the District Collector, Nagaur in which it is observed that no illegality has been committed by the Gram Panchayat, Degana in selecting petitioner but later on while ignoring the said communication, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 05.08.2010, which is impugned in this writ petition. 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that whole basis of termination of services of the petitioner is baseless and illegal because she was possessing Senior Higher Secondary qualification and was eligible for appointment as 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' (worker) as per the guidelines issued by Government, which is Annexure-R/1. Therefore, the termination order is patently illegal and have no foundation to stand. 6. In this writ petition, an interim order was passed by this Court while issuing notice on 24.11.2010. Thereafter, an application was moved by respondent No.5 for impieaded her as party respondent in the petition in which it was pleaded that all the proceedings have been upon her complainant, therefore, she is necessary party in the matter. 7. Vide order dated 13.12.2010, the applicant Smt. Shravani Devi was impleaded as party respondent in the matter. Thereafter, an application was moved by respondent No.5 for impieaded her as party respondent in the petition in which it was pleaded that all the proceedings have been upon her complainant, therefore, she is necessary party in the matter. 7. Vide order dated 13.12.2010, the applicant Smt. Shravani Devi was impleaded as party respondent in the matter. Thereafter an application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India was filed for vacating the interim order granted by this Court on 24.11.2010. 8. In support of contention raised in the application under Article 226 (3) of the Constitution of India, it is submitted that the petitioner was not even eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' (worker) because she was born on 4.4.1990 and minimum age which is prescribed for the post is that a candidate must complete 21 years of age and should not cross the age of 45 years. In this view of the matter, the consideration of petitioner's candidature for appointment by the Gram Panchayat on the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' (worker) itself was illegal. Further, it is pointed out that age relaxation which is provided to the petitioner is also illegal because relaxation of age provided under condition No.4 of the guidelines (Annexure-R5/1), the relaxation is available only in the event of non-availability of candidates of the village area whereas the respondent No.5 was very much available and was possessing the required qualification in accordance with the guidelines, therefore, the termination order is in consonance with the guidelines issued by the Department and the petitioner is having no case in her favour, therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed. 9. After hearing both the parties, I have perused the entire record of the case. 10. It is admitted position of the case that the date of birth of petitioner is 4.4.1990 and admittedly she was 20 years of age on 10.3.2010 when her case was considered for appointment. It is also admitted position of the case that the respondent No. 5 was possessing all required eligibility and qualification for appointment on the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' (worker) and also belonging to the village area, therefore, as per condition No. 4 of the guidelines, no relaxation in age was to be given to the petitioner because respondent No. 5 candidate of village area was available. Upon aforesaid facts, relaxation granted to the petitioner was illegal and contrary to the guidelines because respondent No. 5 was eligible and possessing requisite qualification for appointment on the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' (worker). In this view of the matter, it is obvious that the petitioner was wrongly granted relaxation of age by the Gram Panchayat, Degana because she was admittedly within 20 years of age on the date of consideration for appointment. 11. In this view of the matter, the order impugned dated 05.08.2010 has been passed in consonance with the notification issued by the Government, therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******