ORDER : 1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised a grievance against the issuance of fresh advertisement dated 12.09.2019 for the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre- Aagriya, Tehsil Kotdi, District – Bhilwara. 2. Briefly narrated, facts of the present case are that an advertisement dated 22.02.2019 came to be issued for the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre – Aagriya, Tehsil Kotdi, District – Bhilwara. 3. The case set up by the petitioner is that she being the sole candidate, who had applied and having requisite qualification, was eligible to be appointed for the post of Anganwari Worker, but for the reasons best known to the respondents, her application was not processed for a considerable period and then, abruptly a fresh advertisement dated 12.09.2019 for the said post has been issued to fill such post. 4. Mr. R.S. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner, having apprised the Court about the relevant facts of the present case, argued that the respondents have illegally withheld the selection process and thereafter issued a fresh advertisement for no reason and rhyme. 5. He argued that the fresh advertisement has been issued in order to defeat petitioner’s right to get appointment, who being the sole candidate was sure to be appointed. 6. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards the information that has been supplied by the respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and highlighted that the only reason given by the respondents for not processing petitioner’s application, is that the Gram Sabha did not convene the meeting to consider petitioner’s application; thereafter the application was forwarded to Sub-Divisional Officer but his office remained vacant for long time and then, Model Code of Conduct was imposed due to which, the selection process could not be completed in requisite time. 7. Mr. Saluja argued that the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner of her right of being considered for appointment on the ground of delay occasioned by non convening of the Gram Shabha. 8. Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, while relying upon the circular dated 09.11.2016 (dealing with the appointment of Anganwari Centres), submitted that in case the selection process is not completed within a period of 75 days, a fresh advertisement is to be issued. 8. Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, while relying upon the circular dated 09.11.2016 (dealing with the appointment of Anganwari Centres), submitted that in case the selection process is not completed within a period of 75 days, a fresh advertisement is to be issued. He submitted that the communication dated 07.01.2020, clearly suggests that as the process could not be completed in time, the subject advertisement was issued. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 10. Though in the reply, a stand has been taken by the respondent that before the recruitment process could be completed, certain amendments were brought in the scheme for selection of Anganwari Workers and, therefore, fresh advertisement was issued but during the course of submission, a plea was additionally taken, relying on communication dated 07.01.2020, that the meeting of the Gram Sabha could not be convened and the post of Sub Divisional Officer remained vacant, due to which the process could not be completed in 75 days and hence, fresh advertisement was issued for the said post. 11. Relevant part of the circular dated 09.11.2016 reads thus:- “(viii) in fjfDr dh foKfIr tkjh gksus ds i'pkr p;u dh lEiw.kZ izfØ;k xzke iapk;r }kjk 2 ekg dh le;kof/k ;k 1 xzke lHkk vk;kstu esa iw.kZ ugha dh tkrh gS rks cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh }kjk mDr ojh;rk lwph ,oa vkosnu i=ksa dks iz'kklfud lq/kkj ¼vuqHkkx&3½ foHkkx ds vkns'k la[;k ,Q- 6 ¼34½iz-lq-@vuq&3@2013 fnukad 19-9-2013 ds }kjk mi[k.M vf/kdkjh dh v/;{krk esa xfBr CykWd Lrjh; fuxjkuh lfefr dks mDr le; vof/k iw.kZ gksus ds 15 fnol esa p;u lEcfU/kr leLr izdj.k izLrqr dj p;u djok;k tk;sxk] ftlesa mi[k.M vf/kdkjh] lEcfU/kr iapk;r lfefr izfrfuf/k] [k.M fodkl vf/kdkjh] [k.M Lrjh; fpfdRlk izfrfuf/k ¼ch-,e-vks-@fp-v-½] [k.M Lrjh; f'k{kk izfrfuf/k ¼ch-bZ-vks-½] [k.M d`f"k izlkj vf/kdkjh ,oa cky fodkl ifj;kstuk vf/kdkjh lnL; gSA ftyk mi funs'kd dk ;g mRrj nkf;Ro gksxk fd lEiw.kZ p;u izfØ;k foKfIr tkjh gksus ds 75 fnu esa iw.kZ gks tk;sA 12. But then, if the Gram Sabha was not convened and petitioner’s candidature/eligibility was not considered by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on this count. The circular enjoins upon the Deputy Director to complete the process within 75 days but it has not been provided that the failure to complete the process would anul the entire selection process. The circular enjoins upon the Deputy Director to complete the process within 75 days but it has not been provided that the failure to complete the process would anul the entire selection process. In absence of such stipulation, simply because a period of 75 days has passed, the process of recruitment cannot be initiated afresh. 13. Neither it was petitioner’s fault, nor can she be held responsible for the delay caused. 14. The approach of the respondents is clearly arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the circular. The petitioner cannot be deprived of her right of consideration and the process cannot be aborted, as has been done by the respondents. 15. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 16. The respondents are directed to consider petitioner’s candidature, in accordance with law and for such purpose, if the meeting of Gram Sabha is necessary, the same be convened. 17. The entire process be completed on or before 31.12.2023 and in case, petitioner is found eligible, she be accorded appointment on the post applied for. 18. Stay petition also stands disposed of.