Neelam Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1) The appellant seeks review of the judgment dated 28.05.2019, rendered by, the then Hon’ble Chief Justice, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Ranganathan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S. Dhanik, whereby the present Special Appeal, bearing No. 543 of 2019, was dismissed by the Division Bench.

2) The case of the appellant was that one Meena Devi was appointed against the post of Aaganwari Worker for the Aaganwari Center-Chaper, District Rudraprayag, in response to an advertisement published on 15.12.2011, under the BPL category. The appellant was placed at serial No. 1 on the wait list. The appellant raised an objection that Meena Devi did not belong to the BPL category. That objection was not looked at, and Meena Devi was appointed to the said post on 12.12.2012.

3) Pertinently, the appellant did not approach the Court at that point of time. Clearly, the appellant accepted the appointment of Meena Devi to the said post. It appears that much later, on a report being made on 02.02.2016 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, it was found that the appointment of Meena Devi was illegal, and she was asked to resign from her post. On 29.08.2016, Meena Devi resigned. The respondent then issued another advertisement on 08.10.2016, wherein the appellant also participated, but was unsuccessful. The claim of the appellant was that since Meena Devi was found to be disqualified, the appellant being at serial No. 1 on the wait list, should have been offered the post. The Division Bench rejected this submission of the appellant by observing in para 9, as follows:

“9. Empanelment of a candidate, and inclusion of his name in the wait list, does not mean that the empanelled candidate should invariably be appointed to the post. It is always open to the respondents, instead, to cancel the selection process, and conduct selections afresh. Since the life of the panel (wait list) was for a period of only six months, and the said period expired in the year 2012 itself, resignation of Mrs. Meena Devi in the year 2016 could only have resulted in a fresh selection process being undertaken by the respondents. They cannot be faulted for not giving effect to the earlier process of selection held in the year 2011, and in not appointing a candidate from the wait list more than four years after the life of the panel had expired. In any event, the appellant-writ petitioner having submitted an application on 15.11.2016, pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.10.2016, a day before she filed this writ petition on 16.11.2016, and having participated in the selection process thereafter, cannot be heard to contend that a fresh advertisement should not have been issued, and a fresh selection process should not have been undertaken.”

4) Once again, the appellant is seeking to re-argue the matter by complaining that the post should be offered to her, since Meena Devi was found to be disqualified.

5) We find absolutely no merit in this submission. The Division Bench has already rejected the submission by observing that the life of the wait list panel is only for six months, and after several years, upon resignation of Meena Devi, the post could not be offered to the appellant. In addition to the reason given by the Division Bench, we also find that the appellant slept over her rights and did not approach the Court when Meena Devi was given the appointment in the year 2012. On that ground as well, by her conduct, she disentitled herself from seeking any relief.

6) We find no merit in the present review petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed.