Anju Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1583 of 2015, whereby the appellant-writ petitioner's challenge, to the appointment of the fifth respondent as an Aaganbari Karyakatri for the Aaganbari Kendra Sillabamangaon Pratham village, was rejected.

In the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge noted that, while the appellant-writ petitioner had contended that she should be appointed as an Aaganbari Karyakatri since she secured more marks than the fifth respondent, an inquiry was caused by the Chief Development Officer, as the Supervisor of the Aaganbari Centre, and he found that the appellant-writ petitioner belonged to Badkot Tok, and not to village Sillabamangaon. The learned Single Judge observed that it had come out in the inquiry that there were three centers already running in Gadnu Jhatgarh and Badkot Tok; and the first Aaganbari Center, of village Sillabamangaon, was functioning 600 meters away from Molkata Tok. Holding that there was no merit, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.

Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that the impugned advertisement only talks about applications being invited for the post of Aaganbari Karyakatri for the Aaganbari Centre at Sillabamangaon Pratham village; the said village consists of three hamlets i.e. Gadnu Jhatgarh, Badkot Tok and Molkata Tok; since the advertisement referred to applications being invited only for the Sillabamangaon Pratham village, and not for any particular hamlet of the village, the respondents had acted illegally in appointing the fifth respondent, though she had secured lesser marks than the appellant-writ petitioner, merely on the ground that she belonged to Molkata Tok.

Both Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned Brief Holder and Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned counsel for the fifth respondent, would contend that the advertisement itself prescribes the order of preference, and the first preference is for Molkata Tok as the Aaganbari Center is located in proximity to this hamlet; and three other Aaganbari Centers are already running in the other three hamlets of the Sillabamangaon village.

These contentions, which are now urged before us by learned counsel on either side, have not been considered by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal. The order under appeal was passed on the premise that the Aaganbari Center, located 600 meters from Molkata Tok, justified appointing an Aaganbari Karyakatri to the said center only from Molkata Tok hamlet, and not from any other hamlet of Sillabamangaon village. It is only if the advertisement gives preference to residents of Molkata Tok, which is one of the hamlets of the Sillabamangaon village, would the action of the respondents, in appointing the fifth respondent, be justified. This, again, is a matter which requires the conditions stipulated in the advertisement, to be considered; and thereafter determine whether the advertisement, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Aaganbari Karyakatri, was for the Sillabamangaon village in its entirety, or whether it was restricted only to residents of Molkata Tok.

As these contentions have not been examined in the writ petition, this Court would not be justified in examining these contentions for the first time in an intra-Court appeal. The order under appeal is, therefore, set-aside, and the writ petition is restored to file. We have no doubt that the learned Single Judge, on a request being made for an early hearing by the learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, would give such a request its due consideration.

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs.