Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 346 (UTT)

Monika Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-05-21

NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the fifth respondent in the Writ Petition aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1404 of 2011 dated 12.04.2019. In the said Writ Petition, a writ of certiorari was sought to quash the illegal appointment of the appellant-fifth respondent by order dated 30.06.2011; and a writ of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to provide an opportunity for making an application, for appointment to the post of Anganbari Karyakarti and Sahayika, to the eligible candidates on the basis of priority of residence of the concerned sub-village where the Anganbari centre is situated. 2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that an advertisement was initially issued on 25.07.2010 inviting applications for being considered for appointment to the post of Anganbari Karyakarti and Sahayika in the 96 Anganbari centres in Sitarganj block of Udham Singh Nagar district. The authorities later realized that there were, in fact, 99 Anganbari centres and not 96; and, accordingly, an errata was issued and a notice was pasted, on the notice board of the Tehsil office, inviting applications for the remaining three posts of Anganbari Karyakarti and Sahayika in three different Anganbari centres in Sitarganj block. 3. In terms of the Rules only a person, who is a resident of the village in which the Anganbari centre is located, is entitled to apply for the said post; and since the advertisement contained the names of only 96 Anganbari centres, and Anand Nagar in Tiliyapur Gaon Sabha was not one among them, residents of the village Tiliyapur could not have applied for appointment as an Anganbari Karyakarti in any of these 96 Anganbari centres, since their eligibility, to be appointed to the said post, is only in relation to the Anganbari centre located in their respective villages. The errata issued by the authorities, and the notice which was affixed on the notice board, was not to the knowledge of the respondents-writ petitioners', resulting in their inability to submit their applications pursuant thereto, and in not being able to participate in the process of selection. 4. The appellant herein was appointed as an Anganbari Karyakarti for the Anand Nagar centre on 18.12.2010, and joined duty as such on 01.11.2011. 4. The appellant herein was appointed as an Anganbari Karyakarti for the Anand Nagar centre on 18.12.2010, and joined duty as such on 01.11.2011. Questioning the said appointment, the respondents-writ petitioners filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1404 of 2011; and the learned Single Judge observed, in the order under appeal, that neither the State Government nor the private respondent nos. 5 and 6, who had been selected, were able to show that any advertisement was issued for the post of Anganbari Karyakarti and Sahayika for the Anand Nagar centre at Tiliyapur, Sitarganj Tehsil of Udham Singh Nagar district; the public notice dated 28.07.2010, issued after the advertisement dated 25.07.2010, contained two flaws. This public notice was never published in a newspaper having wide circulation in District Udham Singh Nagar as was the requirement under the order dated 24.05.2009, whereby the scheme for appointment as an Anganbari Karyakarti and Sahayika had been made. Secondly, the names of the remaining Anganbari centres, which could not be published in the advertisement dated 25.07.2010, were not given even in the public notice; as a result, candidates who were qualified to be considered for appointment to the post of Anganbari Karyakarti and Sahayika were in no position to apply for the post, including for the Anganbari centre at Anand Nagar, Tiliyapur, Sitarganj block of Udham Singh Nagar district; and, consequently, appointment of the appellant-fifth respondent, along with the sixth respondent, was quashed as it was dehors the Rules, and was contrary to the process adopted by the respondents. The Child Development Project Officer, Udham Singh Nagar district, along with his superior officers, were directed to re-advertise the posts of Anganbari Karyakarti and Sahayika within three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The learned Single Judge, however, made it clear that till the selected candidates joined the posts, the fifth and sixth respondents would continue to function in the post of Anganbari Karyakarti and Sahayika. The learned Single Judge further directed the Secretary, Child Development, Government of Uttarakhand to seek an explanation from the Child Development Project Officer of Sitarganj, who was working as such on 28.07.2010, as to why he did not follow the mandatory provisions of the law, and as it did appear that such a procedure was followed only to give benefit to the appellant. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 5. Mr. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. 5. Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant-fifth respondent, would submit that the procedure adopted by the authorities, in issuing a notice for the Anganbari centres, which was not advertised earlier, is not confined only to the Anand Nagar, Tiliyapur Anganbari centre; while the three Anganbari centres in Sitarganj block were notified, 15 other Anganbari centres, in other blocks, were also notified in the same manner; since the appointment made to those posts have not been interdicted by this Court, and the appellant alone has been subjected to adverse treatment, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside; the eligibility criteria prescribed, for being considered for appointment as an Anganbari Karyakarti, is that the candidate should have a monthly income of less than Rs. 2,500/-; while the appellant had a monthly income of less than Rs. 2,500/- before she was appointed as an Anganbari Karyakarti, she has been receiving a sum of Rs. 7,500/- per month as an Anganbari Karyakarti; and she may, therefore, not be eligible to apply for the post of Anganbari Karyakarti in Anand Nagar Anganbari centre, since she does not now fulfill the income criteria. 6. While supporting the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge, Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners, would submit that, in the absence of an advertisement being issued inviting application from all eligible candidates, the respondents-writ petitioners were kept in the dark that the post of Anganbari Karyakarti and Sahayika in Anand Nagar Anganbari centre was also being filled up; if only they had known that the said post was also sought to be filled, they would have submitted an application to be considered for appointment to the said post; and since the entire exercise of issuing a notice and in filling up the post was undertaken surreptitiously, the learned Single Judge was justified in setting at naught appointment of the appellant as an Anganbari Karyakarti, since her appointment was made merely by affixing a public notice on the notice board of the Tehsil office; and wide publicity was not given while inviting applications for the said post. Learned counsel would further submit that, in so far as the income criteria is concerned, it was just and fair that the appellant's income should be treated as what she was getting before her appointment as an Anganbari Karyakarti, since her very appointment, to the said post, has been set-aside, by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal. 7. The procedure adopted by the respondents, to fill up the post of Anganbari Karyakarti in 96 Anganbari centres, was to issue an advertisement wherein details of each such centre, and the persons eligible to be considered for each such centre, was published. Having issued an advertisement for 96 Anganbari centres, the respondent-authorities ought to have issued a fresh advertisement inviting applications even for the remaining three Anganbari centres in Sitarganj block to enable those, who were interested to apply for the said post, to do so. Permitting appointment of Anganbari Karyakarti to be made in these three centres, merely by issuing a notice which was affixed on the notice board of the Tehsil office, has resulted in persons, like the respondents-writ petitioners, being kept in the dark when the said posts were filled up by the authorities. 8. The learned Single Judge was, in our view, justified in interdicting the selection and appointment of the appellant herein, since her appointment was made surreptitiously merely by affixture of a notice on the notice board of the Tehsil office, and not by way of fresh advertisement inviting applications from all eligible candidates. Interference in an intra- court appeal would be justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity in the order under appeal. 9. We, however, agree with the submission of Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, that, even though her appointment as an Anganbari Karyakarti has been set at naught by the learned Single Judge, she would now be disabled from participating in the selection process for appointment to the post of Anganbari Karyakarti, which post the respondents have now been directed to fill up after issuing a fresh advertisement. The criteria for being considered for appointment to the post of Anganbari Karyakarti, is that the candidate should be earning an income of below Rs. 2,500/- per month. The appellant herein has been receiving a monthly remuneration of Rs. The criteria for being considered for appointment to the post of Anganbari Karyakarti, is that the candidate should be earning an income of below Rs. 2,500/- per month. The appellant herein has been receiving a monthly remuneration of Rs. 7,500/- as an Anganbari Karyakarti, which would render her ineligible to be considered for appointment to the said post. As the learned Single Judge has quashed the appointment of the appellant herein, the remuneration drawn by her as an Anganbari Karyakarti cannot be taken into considered in computing her monthly income. If the income of the appellant, other than the salary which she received as an Anganbari Karyakarti, is below Rs. 2,500/- per month, she shall then be issued an income certificate, and be considered for appointment along with others, on a fresh advertisement being issued inviting applications for appointment to the post of Anganbari Karyakarti in Anand Nagar Anganbari centre. 10. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.