Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 256 (HP)

Seema Devi v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-03-06

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Ajay Mohan Goel, J —By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment, dated 30.12.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 11756 of 2008, vide which, learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition, set aside the appointment of the present appellant against the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Syarla, under ICDS Project, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur. Learned Single Judge also directed the respondent-State to re-do the entire selection process within a period of two months. 2. Before the learned Single Judge, the petitioner therein had assailed the appointment of the present appellant against the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Syarla, under ICDS Project, Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, on the ground that initial interviews for filling up the said post were held on 27th July, 2003, in which petitioner alongwith one Smt. Sudesh Sharma had participated, but respondentState arbitrarily, rather than making the appointment on the basis of the interviews so held on 27th July, 2003, decided to hold fresh interviews, which were thereafter held on 29.10.2004 and this entire exercise was undertaken at the instance of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. 3. Respondent-State defended its act on the ground that as certain candidates could not apply earlier, therefore, fresh interviews were conducted to fill up the post in issue. 4. Learned Single Judge allowed the petition by holding that the reasons which were given by the State as to why fresh interviews were held on 20.10.2004, were not sustainable in law. Learned Single Judge held that it was settled law that all candidates should submit their applications by or before the date prescribed and, therefore, initial interviews could not have been cancelled simply on the pretext that certain candidates could not apply. Learned Single Judge also held that respondent-State had issued a notification on 20.02.2003, para 11-A of which mentioned that cancellation of interview could only be if the selection of Anganwari Worker/Helper had not been made in accordance with the guidelines. Learned Single Judge further held that it was not the pleaded case that earlier interview was not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State. Learned Single Judge further held that it was not the pleaded case that earlier interview was not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the State. On these basis, learned Single Judge while holding the act of the respondent-State of holding fresh interview as illegal, set aside the appointment of the present appellant by holding that selection committee had committed illegality by ignoring the case of the petitioner and recommending the case of respondent No. 5. 5. Feeling aggrieved, appellant has filed this appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, as also learned Advocate General and have also gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, as also the records of the case. 7. It is not in dispute that present appellant did not submit her application for the post in issue before the date of interview which was held on 27.07.2003. It is also not in dispute that at the instance of Pradhan concerned, fresh interviews were conducted on 29.10.2004, on the ground that some of the candidates could not apply earlier. In our considered view, the act of the respondent-State of not making the appointment on the basis of the initial interview and thereafter holding fresh interviews on the pretext that certain candidates had not applied earlier, was nothing but an arbitrary act and an act of colourable exercise of power. Respondent-State or the Pradhan of the area concerned had no authority to direct holding of fresh interviews on the ground that few candidates had failed to apply for the post in issue earlier. When eligible candidates were available, who participated in the initial interview, which was so held, then it is not understood as to what was the need to hold fresh interviews, when it was not the case of the State that the candidates who had applied earlier and were interviewed on 27th July, 2003, were not eligible to be appointed for the post in issue. Learned Single Judge has also held and correctly so that there was no authority with the State to have had held fresh interviews by ignoring the merit of the candidates who had appeared in the first interview. Learned Single Judge also correctly held that the act of the respondent of appointing the present appellant on the basis of second interview, was completely illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Learned Single Judge also correctly held that the act of the respondent of appointing the present appellant on the basis of second interview, was completely illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 8. Accordingly, as we do not find any illegality in the judgment, dated 30.12.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP(T) No. 11756 of 2008, we dismiss this appeal being devoid of any merit.