Krishna Kumari vs State of Bihar and Others

Mihir Kr. Jha, J.—Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:--

For directing the respondents particularly respondent District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur to call the petitioner for interview for the purpose of selection on the post of Lady Supervisor under Child Welfare Department amongst the post reserved for Anganwari Sevika and the persons junior to her in the gradation list were asked to appear for counselling through newspaper.

Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the averments made in the writ application has submitted that the denial of opportunity to the petitioner for appearing in the interview with regard to selection on the post of Lady Supervisor is wholly unjustified, inasmuch as the petitioner''s Vidya Vinodini qualification can no longer be the basis for considering her case, inasmuch as she has already passed Intermediate Examination. According to him, when there were two classified groups, one for direct recruitment on the post of Female Supervisor and the other for selection amongst the working Anganwari Sevikas, the case of the petitioner had to be considered in terms of the advertisement by giving due credit to the petitioner for experience earned by her while working as Anganwari Sevika.

In this case a counter affidavit has been filed by the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur wherein it has been stated that though the name of the petitioner was initially included in the provisional merit list in the light of the circular of the Department dated 10.6.2010 but subsequently on 24.7.2012 in the meeting of the District Level Selection Committee it was decided to prepare the publish a new provisional merit list in the light of the letter dated 15.9.2011 of the Secretary of Social Welfare Department of the Govt. of Bihar laying down that certain qualification including Vidya Vinodini is invalid degree. It has been also clarified that not only the petitioner but eight others whose names were earlier included in the first provisional merit list were deleted in the light of the letter dated 15.9.2011 of the Secretary of Social Welfare Department.

In the considered opinion of this Court the decision of the respondents in deleting the name of the petitioner from the merit list is apparently incorrect and cannot be sustained either on fact or in law. In this regard it has to be noted that on 5.7.2010 a total number of 141 posts of Female Supervisor were to be filled up on contract basis out of which 106 posts were to be filled up by direct recruitment and the rest 35 posts were to be filled up from amongst the working Anganwari Supervisor (sic--Sevika?). The minimum qualification laid down for the post of Female Supervisor under direct recruitment quota was graduate, whereas for the working Anganwari Sevika it was only Matriculation or equivalent. This would become more apparent from the advertisement which was issued by Muzaffarpur Collectorate which is reproduced hereinbelow:--

A bare reading of the aforementioned advertisement, therefore, itself would go to show that the petitioner and others working Anganwari Sevika had to fulfil the minimum qualification of Matriculation or its equivalent as also having ten years of experience. There is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Sevika on 11.1.1991 and thus, on 5.7.2010 she had completed more than 19 years of service as an Anganwari Sevika. In fact even though the petitioner was initially appointed as an Anganwari Sevika with her qualification of Vidya Vinodini, she had subsequently appeared and passed Intermediate Examination in the year 1993 in 1st division. Thus, on the date the petitioner became an applicant for the post of Female Supervisor she was already an Intermediate and had, therefore, more than the minimum qualification of Matriculation or its equivalent.

The respondents in fact had correctly included the name of the petitioner in the provisional merit list which was prepared on 24.7.2012 on the basis of guidelines which were issued on 10.6.2010 i.e. prior to issuance of the advertisement. The said guideline issued by the State Government on 10.6.2010 in no uncertain terms had made it clear that for 25% post reserved for Anganwari Sevika a merit list was to be prepared by awarding marks for additional qualification of Intermediate, Graduation or Post Graduation in addition to the marks fixed for experience. The relevant portion of the Government guidelines dated 10.6.2010 so far it relates to filling up the post of Female Supervisor from Anganwari Sevika is quoted hereinbelow:--

The plea of the respondents that subsequently a clarification was issued on 15.9.2011 under which the petitioner became disqualification (sic--disqualified?) is also of no avail. First of all the said instruction was issued specifically in case of West Champaran District and was not to be made application (sic--applicable?) for Muzaffarpur District. That apart even if the gist of that clarification issued by the Government on 15.9.2011 is taken into its true prospective it could have debarred only such of the Anganwari Sevika who had their qualification limited to Matriculation or its equivalent. This would become more clear from the letter of the Secretary to the Social Welfare Department dated 15.9.2011 which is quoted hereinbelow:--

From reading of the aforementioned Government letter dated 15.9.2011 it would be clear that the Government had decided not to recognize the qualification of certain institutions or certain qualification themselves and Vidya Vinodini was one of them. The petitioner, however, was not claiming her appointment on the post of Female Supervisor on the basis of her being a Vidya Vinodini, rather she was an applicant for the said post on the basis of her being an Intermediate which she had passed from Bihar Intermediate Education Council in 1st division.

In this regard this Court has also taken into consideration the letter of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council dated 17.11.1983 whereby and whereunder the decision of Intermediate Council was communicated to the Vice-Chancellor of Prayag Manila Vidyapeeth that the Intermediate Council had recognized the equivalence of qualification of Vidya Vinodini and other examinations of Prayag Manila Vidyapeeth. In fact it was on the basis of this decision of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council dated 17.11.1983 that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council in the year 1993 and had passed the Intermediate Examination in 1st division. Once the petitioner had passed the Intermediate Examination conducted by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council she could no longer be given any tag or discredit of having her qualification of Vidya Vinodini.

Thus, even if the Government clarificatory letter dated 15.9.2011 had excluded certain qualification including Vidya Vinodini for the post of Female Supervisor the same could have been made applicable only in the cases of such Anganwari Sevika who had not passed any higher examination and had remained working on the post of Anganwari Sevika on the basis of there being holder of the qualification of Vidya Vinodini alone. The petitioner, however, had passed Intermediate Examination in the year 1993 and therefore, when she had already completed 19 years of service as Anganwari Sevika she could not have been debarred from being considered for the post of Female Supervisor. In fact her name was rightly included in the 1st provisional merit list and ought to have not been deleted without following spirit of the Government instruction dated 15.9.2011.

By now it is well settled that it is the terms of the advertisement which would govern the process of appointment. In the present case such advertisements were issued on 15.7.2010 in terms of the resolution of the Social Welfare Department dated 10.6.2010 and that was not required to be varied only on the basis of the aforementioned clarificatory letter. As a matter of fact there were six post reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates amongst 35 posts of Female Supervisor to be filled from Anganwari Sevika and the petitioner on the basis of her qualification of Intermediate as also 19 years of her experience was at serial No. 2 as is clear from the provisional merit list, contained in Annexure-5, inasmuch as only Gunjan Kumari of the Scheduled Caste category was above her. As a matter of fact the petitioner was placed at serial No. 30 of the consolidated merit list of 174 candidates and was well covered in all respect for 35 posts of Female Supervisor to be filled up from Anganwari Sevika. The exclusion of the name of the petitioner from the merit list, therefore, is wholly unjustified either on fact or in law.

In the result, this writ application is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Female Supervisor within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order inasmuch as she is a better candidate than any of the other Scheduled Caste candidates included and selected in the second provisional merit list while deleting the name of the petitioner, namely, Rambha Kumari, Kumari Madhavi, Punam Kumari, Sushma Kumari, Punam Devi and Neelam Kumari Devi as would be apparent from perusal of the provisional merit list, as contained in Annexure-5. The total points obtained by the petitioner being 89.80 as also shown in the second provisional merit list, contained in Annexures "C" and "D", wherein she has also been awarded 10 marks for her Intermediate Examination, her name ought to have been placed at serial No. 16 below one Krishna Kumari of OBC-II category securing 90.00 marks and above Meena Kumari securing 89.67 marks. As a matter of fact there being 18 posts for general category and the petitioner''s position being at serial No. 16 she could have very well be taken as a genera! candidate as was also done in the case of Kumari Madhavi, who was placed at serial No. 13 of the second panel dated 2.8.2012, as contained in Annexure "C". It also goes without saying that on appointment of the petitioner on the post of female Supervisor she will also be entitled for her all consequential benefits including her seniority amongst the lady supervisor and pay protection in accordance with the observations and directions given hereinabove in this order.