Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 676 (GAU)

Manasha Das v. State of Tripura

2011-08-10

A.C.UPADHYAY

body2011
JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. J. Bhusan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Datta, learned Counsel representing for the State Respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the Memorandum No. F.3(2)-DSWE/ESTT/98 dated 19.03.1999, issued by the Director, Social Welfare & Social Education, Tripura, by which the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who are junior to the Petitioner in the seniority list of Anganwadi Workers, have been promoted to the post of Junior Social Education Organizer (Group-C). The Petitioner has prayed for issuing a direction to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for her promotion to the post of Junior Social Education Organizer (Group-C) with effect from the date on which the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been promoted in the said posts. 3. The facts, leading to filing of this writ petition, may be summarized, in brief, as follows: The Petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker by the Respondent No. 2 under the Integrated Child Development Scheme w.e.f. 10.12.1980 and since then the Petitioner has been discharging her duties in the said capacity with full devotion and entire satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The Petitioner belongs to the Schedule Caste community being the member of Mahishya Das Community. The final seniority list of the Anganwadi Workers, working together with the Petitioner, was published on 25.06.1996, showing the caste status and also the dates of entry in service of the concerned employees. The Petitioner has been declared as Madhyamik examination passed as per the Government decision, as she could not come successful in the Higher Secondary Examination in the year 1997. In the meanwhile, the Governor of the State in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India notified the Recruitment Rules for the post of Junior Social Education Organizer/Junior Social Education Organizer (Female) (hereinafter Recruitment Rules, 1997) under the Education Department, Government of Tripura which was published on 14.02.1997, The Recruitment Rules, 1997 is extracted herein below, for the sake of convenience: No.F.11(17)-DSWE/ESTT/89 Government of Tripura Education Department (Social Welfare & Social Education) Dated, Agartala, the 14th Feb, 1997. NOTIFICATION In exercise of powers conferred by the provision to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor, Tripura has been pleased to make rules in the Schedule here to annexed regarding the method of recruitment and qualification necessary for appointment to the post of Junior Social Education Organisor/Junior Social Education Organisor (Female) under Education Department (Social Welfare & Social Education). By order of the Governor, Sd/- 14.02.1997 (S.Sailo) Joint Secretary, Govt. of Tripura Copy to: 1. The Manager, Tripura Govt. Press, Bordowali, Agartala for publication of the same in the next issue of Tripura Gazette. 2. All Departments. 3. All Head of Departments, 4. All Head of Offices. RECRUITMENT RULES FOR THE POST OF JUNIOR SOCIAL EDUCATION ORGANISERS/JUNIOR SOCIAL EDUCATION ORGANISERS(FEMALE) UNDER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA 1. Name of post: Junior Social Education Organisor/Junior Social Education Organisor (Female). 2. Number of Posts: 1508 (plus additional posts as and when created). 3. Classification: Group-C (non-Gazetted). 4. Scale of Pay: Rs. 970-40-1290-45-1650-50-2400/-subject to revision by Govt. from time to time. 5. Whether selection post or: Non-selection. Non-selection post 6. Age limit for direct: Maximum 37 years relasable by 5 years in Recruitment case of SC/ST candidates, Government Servants and Inmate of Children Home (Boys/Girls) State Orphanage for Boys/Girls/State Mahila Ashram/State Home for Destitute Woman. 7. Educational and other: Essential qualification required Madhyamik passed or equivalent for direct recruitment (Relaxable upto Madhyamik plucked for SC/ST Candidates) Desirable a) Experience in Social Work/Social Education/Pre-primary Education. b) Knowledge of Bengalil/Kakbarak. 8. Whether age and Educa-: Age - No. 9. Period of Probation, if any: Two years. 10. Method of recruitment: Direct Recruitment. 11. In case of recruitment by: By promotion - 10% from school mother/ 12. If a DPC exists what is: By Group-C (Non-Gazetted) DPC Its composition. 13. Circumstances in which: As required under TPSC-(Exemption from TPSC is to be consulted. Consultation) Regulations, 1973. 14. Savings: Nothing in these rules shall effect reservation and concessions required to be provided for other society categories of persons attendance with the Central/State time to time in this regard. 15. Repeal: The existing recruitment for the post of Jr. Social Education Organisers/Jr. Social Education Organisers (Female), Notified by the Govt. under Education Department No. II(SWE-17)/80 dt. 4. 14. Savings: Nothing in these rules shall effect reservation and concessions required to be provided for other society categories of persons attendance with the Central/State time to time in this regard. 15. Repeal: The existing recruitment for the post of Jr. Social Education Organisers/Jr. Social Education Organisers (Female), Notified by the Govt. under Education Department No. II(SWE-17)/80 dt. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the said Recruitment Rules provides that 40% of the total vacancy shall be filled up from amongst the Anganwadi Workers basing on their seniority and subject to eligibility, i.e., subject to fulfillment of educational qualification Madhyamik passed or equivalent qualification etc. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that in the memorandum dated 19.03.1999 for appointment to the post of Junior Social Education Organizer, issued by the Respondent No. 2, the name of the Respondent No. 3 appears at Sl. No. 46 and that of Respondent No. 4 appears at Sl. No. 47, thereby the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been appointed by superseding the Petitioner, even though the Petitioner was senior to the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the final seniority list published by the Respondents vide Memorandum dated 25.06.1996. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has further pointed out that in the final seniority list, published on 25.06.1996, the name of the Petitioner appears at Sl. No. 138, whereas the name of the Respondent No. 3 appears at Sl. No. 188 and the name of the Respondent No. 4 even does not appear in the said final seniority list. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that the Petitioner was not considered to the post of Junior Social Education Organizer most arbitrarily and illegally, whereas the juniors to the Petitioner were considered for promotion in violation of the provision of the Recruitment Rules, 1997 as stated hereinabove. 5. Interpreting the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, Mr. S. Talapatra, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that in the Recruitment Rules, 1997, two modes of recruitment have been provided; (i) by direct recruitment and (ii) by promotion. The rule provided 50% of the direct recruitment through open advertisement/employment exchange and 40% of the direct recruitment from amongst the Anganwadi workers based on their seniority and subject to their eligibility. The Petitioner being an Anganwadi worker comes within the quota of 40% meant for the Anganwadi workers. The rule provided 50% of the direct recruitment through open advertisement/employment exchange and 40% of the direct recruitment from amongst the Anganwadi workers based on their seniority and subject to their eligibility. The Petitioner being an Anganwadi worker comes within the quota of 40% meant for the Anganwadi workers. Remaining 10% of the posts are filled up by promotion from among the school Mothers/Gram Laxmi with requisite qualification. Mr. Talapatra contended that for direct recruitment from among the Anganwadi Workers, upper age limit indicated in the Rules cannot be applied since Anganwadi Workers are in service candidates and no age limit has been prescribed for recruitment of working employees. 6. In reply to the above, Mr. B. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the State-Respondents indicating the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 1997 submitted that 40% quota for recruitment from amongst the Anganwadi workers is meant for direct recruitment and in Rule 10 of the Recruitment Rules, it has been specifically indicated that promotions are based on their seniority and subject to eligibility. Mr. Datta, has pointed out that eligibility criteria for direct recruitment has been specifically indicated in column Nos. 6 and 7 of the Recruitment Rules, which clearly provides for maximum age limit and qualification required for direct recruitment. By referring to the affidavit submitted on behalf of the Respondents and drawing attention of the Court to the relevant office file, learned Counsel for the State-Respondents submitted that though the Petitioner had requisite educational qualification, for being considered for direct recruitment, being an Anganwadi Worker, however, she did not qualify in age, at the time of considering her case for direct recruitment. On the other hand, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who were Anganwadi Workers qualified on all fronts for direct recruitment to the posts and accordingly they were selected and appointed. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has placed before this Court for perusal, the relevant records maintained in the Office to show that the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were selected and appointed in the cadre of Junior Social Education Organizers/Junior Social Education Organizers (Female) by way of direct recruitment in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 1997. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not given promotion as has been contended by the Petitioner in the writ petition. Since the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were selected and appointed in the cadre of Junior Social Education Organizers/Junior Social Education Organizers (Female) by way of direct recruitment in terms of the Recruitment Rules, 1997. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were not given promotion as has been contended by the Petitioner in the writ petition. Since the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who were Anganwadi workers qualified for being considered for direct recruitment in the 40% quota meant for direct recruitment from amongst the Anganwadi workers, they were both considered, selected and appointed in the posts. 8. In this context, the affidavit submitted by the State Respondents regarding the process of recruitment adopted by the Respondents and the reason for not considering the case of the Petitioner can be gainfully extracted herein below: 15. I further state that as per recruitment rules for the post of Junior Social Education Organiser/Junior Social Education Organiser (Female), 40% of the vacant posts would be filled up by Anganwadi workers against direct W.P.(C) No. 240 of 2001 Page 9 of 10 9 recruitment quota and the upper age limit for direct recruitment is 42 years in case of SC/ST/Physically handicapped and other categories also. But though the Petitioner belongs to SC community and fulfills the educational qualification criteria for direct recruitment but the Petitioner crossed the upper age limit prescribed for direct recruitment to the post of Junior social education organiser as per recruitment rules for the said post, and for this reason the Petitioner case was not considered for appointment to the post of Junior educational organiser. It is stated the authority has no power to consider case of any person dehors of recruitment rules and no appointment case also be made contrary to the provisions of Recruitment rules and Govt. notifications. 9. Though Mr. Talapatra, learned senior counsel vehemently submitted that the Recruitment Rules, 1997, provided for recruitment by way of promotion among the senior most Anganwadi workers irrespective of their age at the time of recruitment, but on plain reading of the Recruitment Rules, 1997 it appears that for the recruitment to the post of Junior Social Education Organizer, from amongst the Anganwadi workers is not by way of promotion, but, by way of direct recruitment which requires requisite qualifications at the time of considering the case of the individual employee for direct recruitment. Since requisite qualifications include the educational qualification as well as the age of the employee, the Respondents would not have considered the case of the Petitioner for recruitment to the post, as she was over aged at the relevant time, for direct recruitment to the post of Junior Social Education Organizer, as per the Recruitment Rules, 1997. 10. On careful consideration of the entire gamut of facts and the Recruitment Rules, 1997, for the post of Junior Social W.P.(C) No. 240 of 2001 Page 10 of 10 10 Education Organizer/Junior Social Education Organizer (Female), this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is devoid of merit. The relief sought for by the Petitioner cannot be extended to her since the Recruitment Rules, 1997, did not provide for relaxation in age of the serving Anganwadi workers for direct recruitment, to the post of Junior Social Education Organizer. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I pass no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.