Poonam Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

District Programme Officer, Child Welfare, Haridwar issued an advertisement on 26.11.2018, whereby applications were invited from eligible

persons for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri. One of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement was that a candidate should be a permanent

resident of the concerned Village/Ward, in which appointment was to be made. According to the petitioner, she applied against a vacancy in Ward

No. 51, Mohall Ghosiyan, Dheerwali, Jawalapur, District Haridwar, as she is a permanent resident of the said Ward. It is further her case that she,

being a widow, is entitled for preference in appointment.

According to the petitioner, Child Development Officer, Haridwar prepared a tentative select list on 10.01.2019, whereby objections were invited in

respect of the names of selected candidates. One Km. Sajida Ansari D/o late Abdul Kadeer was shown to be selected against the post in question.

Pursuant to the said tentative select list, petitioner filed an objection, stating that Km. Sajida Ansari is not a permanent resident of Ward No. 51,

Mohalla Dheerwali, Ghosiyan-5, therefore, she is not eligible for appointment.

It transpires that the permanent resident certificate issued in favour of the selected candidate (Ms. Sajida Ansari), showing her to be permanent

resident of Mohalla Ghosiyan, was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar vide order dated 19.02.2020. The Appellate Committee has

disposed of petitioner’s objection vide order dated 30.05.2020, which is impugned in the writ petition. A perusal of the order dated 30.05.2020

indicates that the Appellate Committee has taken cognizance of the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar, whereby

permanent resident certificate issued in favour of Ms. Sajida Ansari was cancelled, however, the Appellate Committee has declined to consider

petitioner’s claim for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri on the ground that more than six months have elapsed from the date of

selection and has provided that the earlier selection process stands cancelled and a new advertisement shall be issued for the post in question.

The order passed by the Appellate Committee is unsustainable in the eyes of law for the simple reason that petitioner had filed objection against the

tentative select list well within time, therefore, the delay, if any, in taking decision on the said objection is not attributable to the petitioner. In other

words, petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay in taking decision by the Appellate Committee, therefore, she could not have been denied the right to

be considered for appointment, merely because the period of more than six months has expired after the selection.

After cancellation of the permanent resident certificate of Ms. Sajida Ansari, she could not have been appointed as Anganwadi Karyakatri,

therefore, petitioner had a right to be considered against the post in question.

In such view of the matter, the impugned order dated 30.05.2020 passed by Appellate Authority is quashed and the Writ petition is allowed.

Respondents are directed to consider claim of the petitioner for appointment alongwith other eligible candidates, as per the criteria laid down in the

Government Policy, as early as possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.