AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 245 wordsPankaj Purohit, J
Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.05.2026 passed by the appellate authority, whereby selection for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti for Anganwadi Centre, Barakuna, which was under Gram Panchayat Madam, was cancelled and it was decided to re-advertise the said post.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner participated in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.2024 issued by respondent no.5 inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti, Barakuna. Petitioner was selected for the said post, but in the meantime, a complaint was made by one Rashmi Tamta stating that there was an error in the revenue village mentioned in the advertisement. In the advertisement, Revenue Village of Anganwadi Centre, Barakuna, was published as Revenue Village Madam, whereas it ought to have been Barakuna. The said complaint was examined by the appellate authority, and the appellate authority decided to cancel the selection and re-advertise the said post by issuing a fresh advertisement.
I have perused the impugned order. It is apparent that there was an error in the earlier advertisement, which is fatal in nature. Therefore, a correct decision has been taken by the appellate authority to re-advertise the post by cancelling the earlier selection in which petitioner was selected. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.