Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1341 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. SUKHI DEVI

2017-05-25

ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, GOVIND MATHUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsels on the application preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Having considered the facts stated therein the application is allowed. The delay of 14 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. By the judgment impugned dated 13.12.2013 learned Single Bench while accepting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2208/2012 set aside the order dated 22.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Director, Women and Child Development Department, Bikaner cancelling the order of appointment dated 7.02.2012 pertaining to the respondent-petitioner. 3. In brief, factual matrix is that under an order dated 7.02.2012 the Child Development Project Officer, Deshnok, Bikaner engaged the respondent-petitioner as Anganbari Karyakarta at Anganbari Center, Saisar (1st) (Gram Panchayat-Nathusar) by acting upon the recommendation made by the Rural Development Standing Committee, Panchayat Samiti-Nokha. Order aforesaid was cancelled under the order dated 22.02.2012 as the candidature of the respondent-petitioner was not sponsored in accordance with the norms laid down by the Government of Rajasthan under a circular dated 15.09.2003. As per the circular aforesaid, the eligibility for appointment as Anganbari Karyakarta was 10th standard and a relaxation therein could have been made in exceptional circumstances. The recommendation as per the norms aforesaid for engagement on the post concerned too was required to be made by the Gram Sabha concerned. The candidature of the respondent-petitioner being not recommended by the Gram Sabha and also for the reason that she was not having requisite eligibility the appointment was cancelled under the order dated 22.02.2012. 4. Learned Single Bench accepted the writ petition on the count that two other ladies namely Smt. Rami Devi and Smt. Om Kanwar were also engaged as Anganbari Karyakarta, who too were not having the requisite eligibility i.e. of having Secondary School Examination Certificate. 5. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned Additional Advocate General, Shri S.S. Ladrecha is that as per the norms laid down by the Government of Rajasthan under the circular dated 15.09.2009 relaxation with the eligibility could have been granted in exceptional circumstances and for that purpose the case would have been recommended to the Panchayat Samiti concerned. 5. In appeal, the argument advanced by learned Additional Advocate General, Shri S.S. Ladrecha is that as per the norms laid down by the Government of Rajasthan under the circular dated 15.09.2009 relaxation with the eligibility could have been granted in exceptional circumstances and for that purpose the case would have been recommended to the Panchayat Samiti concerned. It is further submitted that the recommendation for selection as per the circular dated 15.09.2009 was supposed to be made by the Gram Sabha but in the instant matter, the recommendation for appointment was made by Rural Development and Production Committee of the Panchayat Samiti, Nokha who, as a matter of fact, is an alien with regard to the process of appointment on the post of Anganbari Karyakarta. 6. Per contra, as per learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-petitioner, the appellant-respondent provided appointment to two other ladies who too, were not having Secondary School Examination Certificate, therefore, no reason was existing to discriminate the respondent-petitioner. 7. Having considered the arguments advanced and the facts available on record, we are of considered opinion that the engagement of the respondent-petitioner as Anganbari Karyakarta was not in consonance with the norms laid down by the Government of Rajasthan under the circular dated 15.09.2003. The norms referred above in quite unambiguous terms prescribes that the recommendation for engagement as Anganbari Karyakarta is required to be made by Gram Sabha of the Panchayat as concerned. 8. In the case in hand, the issue with regard to the engagement of the respondent-petitioner as Anganbari Karyakarta was never placed before the Gram Sabha and the recommendation was made by the Committee of the Panchayat Samiti which was having no authority to do so. In view of this factual background the engagement of the respondent-petitioner as Anganbari Karyakarta was erroneous. Learned Single Bench, thus, erred while directing the appellant-respondent to offer appointment to the petitioner on the post concerned. 9. In entirety, we are of the view that the respondent-petitioner was not entitled to be engaged as Anganbari Karyakarta. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The order dated 13.12.2014 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The petition for writ preferred by the petitioner is dismissed.