Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1529 (HP)

Surjeena v. State Of H. P.

2018-08-20

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - Aggrieved by the selection of respondent No.6 as Anganwari Worker and rejection of the appeal that was preferred by the petitioner against such selection, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of the following substantive reliefs: (1) That impugned selection and appointment of respondent No. 6 Smt. Kunto Devi dated 28.2.2015 Annexure P-6 & under office order No. BVP (Mehla)6-42/2000-469 2-3- 2015 Annexure P-7 may kindly be quashed & set aside along with impugned order dated 9.4.2015 passed in appeal No. 01-3-XIII-A/2015 by respondent No.2 Additional District Magistrate, Chamba, H.P., Annexure P-8 by holding the petitioner being more meritorious than private respondent. (2) That after quashing & setting aside the impugned selection & appointment orders of respondent No. 6, respondents may kindly be directed to appoint petitioner being selected meritorious candidate/anganwari worker in anganwari centre Kalamla Gram Panchayat Kilod, Tehsil & District Chamba H.P. in the light of facts & circumstances enumerated in the body of petition. 2. In the year 2009, the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Himachal Pradesh, issued a notification dated 5.10.2009 with guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Workers/Helpers under ICDS programme in Himachal Pradesh. One such post of Anganwari Worker was also notified for Anganwari Centre Kalamla, Gram Panchayat, Kilod, for which interviews were conducted on 28.2.2015 and respondent No.6 was selected and appointed as Anganwari Worker. The petitioner aggrieved by her selection preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, who vide order dated 9.4.2015 rejected the same constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition. 3. It is vehemently argued by Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the selection of respondent No.6 is bad in law for the following reasons: 1. She is not the resident of the village, where Anganwari Centre is located. 2. She has been deliberately awarded more marks in the interview even though in the qualifying examination, she had lesser marks. 3. The officials respondents have illegally and deliberately not granted any mark to the petitioner for the experience. 4. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Ms. 2. She has been deliberately awarded more marks in the interview even though in the qualifying examination, she had lesser marks. 3. The officials respondents have illegally and deliberately not granted any mark to the petitioner for the experience. 4. Mr. Vinod Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 5 and Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate, learned counsel for respondent No.6, opposed the petition by contending that all the grounds, as raised in this petition, have already been considered by respondent No.2 in the impugned order, therefore, nothing really survives for adjudication and the petitioner has failed to point out as to how the findings recorded by respondent No.2 are perverse so as to call for any interference by this Court especially while sitting in judicial review over the order passed by respondent No.2. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully. 6. As regards first contention, it would be noticed that as per notification dated 5.10.2009, the eligibility criteria for engagement of Anganwari Workers/Helpers is laid down in clause 4 thereof, which reads thus: "4. Eligibility Criteria Only such female candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker or Helper who are: (a) Normal residents of the village (in case of Rural Area) /ward (in case of Urban Area) where Anganwadi Centre is located or belongs to the feeding villages/wards of the Anganwadi area. Family wise freezing of the list of families being covered in the feeder area of the AWC will be ensured as on first January of recruitment year before starting the selection process and advertising of vacancies with due publicity and only the residents of the areas as above will be entitled to apply. If the candidates are not available within the feeder area, applications can be invited from the desirous candidates residing within the area of the concerned Gram Panchayat cfter taking due approval (in case the feeder area falls in 2 Gram Panchayats) from the Director SJ& E. (b) For Anganwadi worker minimum qualification shall be Matric or equivalent and for Helper minimum qualification should be Primary. (c) Age between 21-45 years; (d) The annual income of the family of candidate does not exceed Rs. 15,000/- Per annum which is to be certified / countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar. " 7. (c) Age between 21-45 years; (d) The annual income of the family of candidate does not exceed Rs. 15,000/- Per annum which is to be certified / countersigned by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar. " 7. It would be noticed from the aforesaid clause that for rural areas, it is not only the normal residents of the village, but even the residents belonging to the feeding villages of the Anganwari area are also eligible for being considered for appointment as Anganwari Worker. It is only when candidates from the feeding area are not available that the desirous candidates residing within the area of the concerned Gram Panchayat can thereafter be appointed. However, as regards the normal residents of the village as also the candidates belonging to the feeding villages, no distinction whatsoever has been made between the two. Therefore, merely because a candidate happens to be the resident of a very village where the Anganwari Centre is located does not in any way have a priority or preference of appointment over those candidates, who though are not normal residents of the village where Anganwari Centre is located but otherwise belong to the feeding villages of the Anganwari area. 8. Adverting to the second contention, it would be noticed that the comparative chart drawn up by the selection committee of three candidates is as under:- Sr. No. Name & address of applicant Income Date of birth Category Educational qualification 10+2 Graduation & above I)% age of marks divided by 10 subject to max. 7 marks ii) For Graduation 2 marks and higher qualification 1 additional Mark Experience as AWH/Balse vika/Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher for one year-1 Mark & if 2 years or more 2 marks and for Shishu Palak of ECCE for 10 months 1 mark Max. 7 marks ii) For Graduation 2 marks and higher qualification 1 additional Mark Experience as AWH/Balse vika/Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher for one year-1 Mark & if 2 years or more 2 marks and for Shishu Palak of ECCE for 10 months 1 mark Max. 3 marks State/Home/BaliKa Asharam Inmates/Orphan/Widow/Destitute/Divorcee 4 marks SC/ST/OBC 2 marks Disability (40% or above) 2 marks Personal interview Max 4 marks Total Marks obtained out of 25 (4+5+ 6+7+8 +9+ 10) Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 Kunto Devi, W/o Kaku Ram, Village Kalamla, P.O. Kilod 20000 27.11.1989 ST 53.40/10=5.34 0 0 0 2 0 3.0 10.34 Selected 2 Surjeena Kumari, W/o Uttam Ram, Village Kalamla, P.O. Kilod 20000 25.3.1993 ST 55.80/10 =5.58 0 0 0 2 0 2.5 10.08 Waiting- I 3 Reena Devi, w/o Barfi Ram,Villa ge Kalamla, P.O. Kilod 20000 5.6.1989 ST 51.80/10 =5.18 0 0 0 2 0 2.5 9.68 9. No doubt, the petitioner scored 5.58 marks on the basis of her matriculation certificate, but that does not mean that she was required to be granted pro-rata or proportionate marks or for that matter more marks in the interview only on this basis alone. 10. The sole purpose of holding interview is to search and select the best amongst the applicants. If the selectional was to be made only on the basis of percentage obtained in 10+2 examination alone, then there was no question for conducting the personal interview, but the selection has to be made in terms of clause 7 of the scheme, which reads thus:- "7. Marks Selection shall be based on merit out of the total marks of 25. Marks will be awarded as follows: - 1. Anganwari Workers A) Maximum 13 Marks for educational qualification will be given in the following manner:- i) Percentage of Marks in matric divided by 10 subject to the maximum of 10 marks. ii) Candidates who possess 10+2 and higher educational qualification will be given 3 additional marks. B) Maximum 2 marks for experience to be given as under One mark for candidates having experience as Anganwadi Helper/Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/ Nursery Teacher for one year or ShishuPalak of ECCE center for 10 months. or Two marks for candidates having experience as Anganwadi Helper/ Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/ Nursery Teacher for two or more years. B) Maximum 2 marks for experience to be given as under One mark for candidates having experience as Anganwadi Helper/Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/ Nursery Teacher for one year or ShishuPalak of ECCE center for 10 months. or Two marks for candidates having experience as Anganwadi Helper/ Balsevika/ Balwadi Teacher/ Nursery Teacher for two or more years. C) 2 marks for disabled women having 40 % and above disability subject to the condition that the type of disability is not such as to hamper the discharge of her job responsibility. D) 2 marks for SC/ST/ OBC candidates. E) 2 marks for State Home/ BalikaAshram Inmates/ Orphans/Widows/Destitutes and Divorcees. F) 4marks for personal interview 11. As regards third contention of the petitioner that no marks for experience were granted in her favour, I find no merit even in this contention, for the reason that as per own showing of the petitioner, she is alleged to have worked as Teacher without pay in G.C.P.S Kalamla, Education Block Gehra, w.e.f. March 2013 to December, 2013, whereas as per clause 7 of the scheme (supra), only that experience which one had gained as Anganwari Helper/ Balsevika/Balwadi Teacher/Nursery Teacher for one year or Shishu Palak of ECCE Centre for 10 months is to be treated as experience under clause 7 of the scheme (supra). Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess this experience. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would then press into service a judgment rendered by learned Division Bench of this Court in Anchana Kumari vs. The State of H.P. and ors. Latest HLJ (2012) 1501 , wherein the services rendered by a candidate in a privately managed school were directed to be treated and counted towards experience in the selection to the post of Anganwari Helper. 13. I really fail to understand as to how the ratio of this judgment is of any assistance to the petitioner. Admittedly, the privately managed school therein was dealing with Tiny Tots as the name suggests and it was a specific case of the candidate therein that she had been working as Nursery Teacher, which plea was accepted by this Court. However, in the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that she has been working as Nursery Teacher in the school so that experience gained by her could be counted for the post in question. However, in the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioner that she has been working as Nursery Teacher in the school so that experience gained by her could be counted for the post in question. Rather, her specific case is that she has rendered gratuitous service in G.C.P.S Kalamla, Education Block Gehra, and has good teaching experience, which is not the experience as contemplated and envisaged in clause 7 (supra) of the scheme. 14 In view of the aforesaid discussions, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.