Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1053 (MP)

Kusum Kachhi v. State of M. P.

2015-10-01

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2015
ORDER : Shantanu Kemkar, J. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 24-12-2012 issued by the District Program Officer of the Woman and Child Development Department, Damoh for filling up the post of Aanganwadi Worker, the petitioner submitted her candidature in respect to the village Kuluaa, Tehsil Patera, District Damoh. Initially the last date for submission of the applications was 31-12-2012, but it was extended upto 15-1-2013. The selection committee appointed the petitioner as she was found to be the most suitable candidate. Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner the respondent No. 6 who was 4th in the merit list had filed an appeal before the Collector, Damoh. The Collector vide order dated 19-6-2014 passed in Appeal No. 17 B/121/2013-14 allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the petitioner's appointment essentially on the ground that on the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement the age of the petitioner was below the minimum age prescribed for the said post. While setting aside the petitioner's appointment the Collector ordered to appoint the 6th respondent on the said post by observing that since she is first in the waiting list she is entitled for being appointed. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Revenue), Sagar. The Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's appeal vide order dated 17-9-2014 and maintained the order of the Collector. Challenging both the orders the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and the documents filed by the parties. 3. In the advertisement dated 24-12-2012 in regard to requirement of essential qualification regarding age it was specifically mentioned that "on the cut-of-date i.e. 1-1-2012 the candidate should not be less than 18 years of age and should not be more than 45 years of age". On the cut-off date mentioned in the advertisement, undisputedly the petitioner was below the prescribed minimum age of 18 years as on that date she was aged 17 years 7 months and 20 days. In the circumstances on this ground and also holding that at the time of filing of the application the petitioner was not resident of the concerned village, the Collector allowed the 6th respondent's appeal and cancelled the petitioners appointment and directed the respondent Nos. In the circumstances on this ground and also holding that at the time of filing of the application the petitioner was not resident of the concerned village, the Collector allowed the 6th respondent's appeal and cancelled the petitioners appointment and directed the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to appoint the 6th respondent in place of the petitioner. The said order was maintained by the Commissioner. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Collector and the Commissioner have committed error in holding that at the time of making the application the petitioner was not resident of village Kaluaa and that the cut-off date for calculating the age of the candidate would be 1-1-2012. He submits that since as per the advertisement the last date for submitting the application was 15-1-2013 the crucial date for reckoning the age ought to have been taken to be 15-1-2013. Alternatively he submits that the Authorities instead of directing the appointment of the 6th respondent in place of the petitioner ought to have ordered for issuance of the fresh advertisement as the 6th respondent was not first in the waiting list, but her position in the waiting list was at No. 4 as per the merit list (Annexure RJ-1). 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents though did not dispute that the petitioner was resident of village Kaluaa at the relevant time and stated that the findings of both the authorities to that effect, is not correct. They, however, could not dispute the fact that the 6th respondent was not at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list, but was at Sr. No. 4. As regards the impugned orders cancelling the petitioner's appointment they support the orders and argued that the relevant cut-off date would be the date appointed in the advertisement for the purpose of calculating the age of the candidate and not the last date fixed in the advertisement for submitting the application. 6. In the present case in the advertisement itself in regard to the essential qualification about the minimum and the maximum age limit, the cut-off date has been appointed. 6. In the present case in the advertisement itself in regard to the essential qualification about the minimum and the maximum age limit, the cut-off date has been appointed. In the circumstances when in the advertisement itself the cut-off date has been fixed, the reference to the last date appointed for making of the application is not relevant in view of the settled principle culled out from the decisions of the Supreme Court that (a) the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules. (b) If there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications, (c) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications were to be received by the competent authority. [See: Shankar K. Mandal and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 2003 SC 4043 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2007) 6 JT 127 . Thus, I am of the view that the finding recorded by both the Authorities in regard to the non-eligibility of the petitioner for being appointed as she was below the minimum age prescribed on the cut-off date as prescribed in the advertisement, cannot be said to be illegal. However, other finding that the petitioner was not resident of the village in question on the relevant date is set aside. 7. As a result the petition is disposed of by maintaining the orders passed by both the Authorities to the extent they have quashed the petitioner's appointment. The directions in the impugned orders to appoint the 6th respondent in place of petitioner and her consequential appointment is quashed, as the 6th respondent was not first in the waiting list but her position was at serial No. 4 in the waiting list. The respondent District Program Officer is directed to initiate fresh proceedings for filling up the post in question for the village Kuluaa as expeditiously as possible. No order as to costs.