Aneeta vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Lok Pal Singh, J

1) Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs, among others:

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned decision dated 06.06.2019 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) of the appellate committee and order dated 12.06.2019 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) passed by District Project Officer, Uttarkashi and office memo dated 17.06.2019 (Annexure 11 to the writ petition) issued by Child Development Project Officer, Dunda, District Uttarkashi.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Aanganbari Sahayika, Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I, Dunda, District Uttarkashi pursuant to her selection for the said post along with all consequential benefits.

2) Brief facts, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the fifth respondent issued an advertisement dated 18.01.2018, whereby various posts of Aanganbari Karyakarti, Sahayika and Mini Karyakarti in different Aanganbari Centers of District Uttarkashi were advertised. In the said advertisement for Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I, Dunga, one post of Sahayika was also advertised to be filled by general category candidate. The said post of Sahayika got vacant due to death of one Surma Begam in December 2016 and, as such, the same was advertised through the aforesaid advertisement dated 18.01.2018 for filling up the posts of Aanganbari Sahayika. The last date for submitting the application, as per the said advertisement, was 16.02.2018. Petitioner, being permanent resident of Village Paini Bhawan, Patti Dhanari, Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi and having all requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Aanganbari Sahayika, applied for the said post. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner belongs to a poor family and her family is having monthly income of Rs.1300/-. After submission of application forms, the respondents compared the eligibility of the candidates and issued a tentative selection list on 11.04.2018. Petitioner was declared selected in said tentative selection list.

3) It is further averred that some persons, who harbour personal grudge against the family of petitioner got annoyed due to her selection and moved frivolous complaints / objections against her selection and due to which, the respondents did not give joining to the petitioners. It is also averred that in Village Paini Bhawan, there are two Aanganbari Centers namely, Paini Bhawan-I and Paini Bhawan-II. The post of Sahayika was advertised for Paini Bhawan-I, the place where the petitioner is residing. The said persons, who made the complaint against the petitioner alleged that Mamta Devi (who is also looking after the work of Sahayika in Paini Bhawan-I) is working as Sahayika in Paini Bhawan-II and that the post of Sahayika is vacant in Paini Bhawan-II. The petitioner moved a representation dated 15.02.2019 before the seventh respondent for conducting an inquiry into the matter. Petitioner also moved a representation dated 18.02.2019 before the third respondent narrating the entire facts and circumstances and requested to give her joining on the post of Sahayika in Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I, for which she was selected. An inquiry was conducted by the respondents on the above representations of the petitioner. After completion of inquiry, the seventh respondent submitted inquiry report dated 25.02.2019 before the fourth respondent categorically stating that the selection of petitioner for the post of Sahayika in Paini Bhawan-I is found genuine and proper. It is alleged in the writ petition that no action was taken by respondents even after the aforesaid inquiry report and the petitioner was not given appointment even after her due selection.

4) It is stated in the writ petition that surprisingly in the aforesaid matter the appellate committee issue an illegal and arbitrary order dated 06.06.2019 in which it has been alleged that there was direction of District Project Officer for inter se absorption of Aanganbari Sahayika of Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I and Paini Bhawan-II, but the said directions were not followed by Child Development Project Officer. The order dated 06.06.2019 further states that since the vacancy of the post in Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I and II is not clear, therefore, after making clear the position, fresh advertisement will be issued and the instant selection process shall stand cancelled. Pursuant to above decision / recommendation of appellate committee, the fifth respondent passed the order dated 12.06.2019 for re-advertisement of the post of Aanganbari Sahayika for Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I. Pursuant to above order dated 12.06.2019, the sixth respondent issue office memorandum dated 17.06.2019 stating that for Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I, the advertisement for the post of Sahayika will be issued in accordance with G.O. dated 24.02.2009. Hence, present writ petition.

5) On behalf of respondent nos. 2 to 7, a counter affidavit was filed in which it has been stated that Smt. Surma was originally posted in the Aanganbari Centre Paini Bhawan-I and her salary was released against the same post, but at the relevant point of time she was posted on the temporary basis in Paini Bhawan-II. After the death of Smt. Surma, post of Aanganbari Centre Paini Bhawan-II got vacant. It is stated that in fact the petitioner was seeking claim for appointment against the post of Aanganbari Centre Paini Bhawan-II, whereas the answering respondent had advertised the post against the Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I, inasmuch as Smt. Surma was originally posted in the Aanganbari Centre Paini Bhawan-I. It is further stated that the answering respondent also issued appointment letter in favour of the petitioner subject to final decision of the writ petition on 01.08.2019, as such, in pursuance of the aforesaid appointment letter, the petitioner was already given joining before the department on 07.08.2019.

6) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents brought on record.

7) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the advertisement was issued by the fifth respondent and the petitioner got selected on the post of Aanganbari Sahayika on her merit, but on the frivolous complaint made in regard to the unavailability of post of Aanganbari Sahayika at Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I, the appellate committee passed the impugned order dated 06.06.2019 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition). It is contended that the petitioner was not at fault if the work place of the petitioner, who was selected as Aanganbari Sahayika in Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I was exchanged with Paini Bhawan II prior to her appointment and if there was any anomaly in issuing the advertisement, it was the fault of the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be punished for the fault committed by the respondents.

8) Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, as also the material available on record, this Court is of the view that on the death of Smt. Surma, the post of Aanganbari Sahayika got vacant and to fill up said vacancy an advertisement was issued. Having considered the fact that as the petitioner fulfils all the requisite qualification for the post advertised, she was declared successful, but the appointment was not given to her at the place for which she was appointed to work on the post advertised on a complaint made by Smt. Suchita, who is resident of Ward no. 2.

9) A perusal of the impugned order/decision would further reveal that the respondents have recommended to re-advertise the post. This fact is not in dispute that without cancelling the appointment of petitioner and on the basis of the complaint made by Smt. Suchita, resident of Ward no. 2 and, more particularly, that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Dunda had already submitted the report in favour of the petitioner, respondents have illegally passed the impugned order/decision dated 06.06.2019 followed by consequential orders which are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed.

10) The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order / decision dated 06.06.2019, consequential order dated 12.06.2019, as also the Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2019 are hereby quashed. Interim order dated 09.07.2019 passed by this Court is hereby made absolute. The petitioner is working as Aangarbari Sahayika in Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I, Dunda, District Uttarkashi. She shall continue to work in said capacity at said Aanganbari Center and be paid honorarium, as per Rules.

11) No order as to costs.