Pravati Panda vs The Collector, Rayagada and Others

S.N. Prasad, J—Heard.

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order under Annexure-7 in not considering the appointment of the petitioner for engagement as Anganwadi Worker has not been found on the ground in the manual guideline has been implemented for the purpose of making selection as Anganwadi Worker.

The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that in terms of order dated 18.10.2005, the petitioner has made an application for being considering as Anganwadi Worker. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the advertisement dated 18.10.2005 has been issued. On the basis of guideline, in which the petitioner has deemed to be fit to be engaged as Anganwadi Worker and accordingly the name of the petitioner for her engagement has been decided but in the meanwhile a new guideline has been implemented by the authority.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since the selection process has been initiated on the basis of the guideline in which he has been declared successful but due to some procedural delay the appointment has not been made. In the meantime, new guideline has come and accordingly, the petitioner has not been engaged on the ground that the selection has to be made on the basis of new guideline. The petitioner in Annexure-7 by which the procedure of engagement has not been acted upon on the ground of affidavit of a new guideline which is under challenge on the ground of once the selection process has been started on the basis of a guideline and in the course of the selection process new guideline has come, the new guideline will not govern the selection process which has already been started.

Learned counsel for the opposite parties has contended that the petitioner''s engagement has not been acted upon on the ground that on the date of engagement a new guideline into operation hence the appointment is to be made on the basis of a new guideline and accordingly Annexure-7 has rightly been issued by the authority which needs no interference.

After hearing the parties at length, the sole question which is decided as to whether the guideline on the basis of which selection process has been started by issuing an advertisement will govern or the subsequent guideline will govern the selection process.

The issue has already been decided by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Sonia Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, AIR 2007 SC 2932 : (2007) 10 JT 37 : (2007) 9 SCALE 625 : (2007) 10 SCC 627 : (2008) 1 SCC(L&S) 702 : (2007) 8 SCR 883 : (2007) 2 UJ 974 : (2007) AIRSCW 5329 : (2007) 5 Supreme 796 , wherein paragraph-11 which is quoted herein below:-

"In the present case, admittedly, while inviting applications, the respondent advertised the number of vacancies required to be filled under various categories. Notice inviting application also mentioned that if under a particular category and eligible candidate was not available, exchange of vacancies between the two categories was permitted. The appellant acted on the basis of the aforesaid advertisement which permitted her to apply for the post and in fact she was permitted to sit in the examination and was subsequently also found to be a successful candidate in the said examination. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid decision in N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission we are of the view that OM dated 06.11.2003 cannot have any retrospective effect and the date on which the applications were invited should be the relevant date for consideration whether exchange of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes candidates was permissible. The decision in N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission has also been echoed by a decision of this Court in P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka. In any view of the matter, law is well settled that an office memorandum cannot have a retrospective effect unless and until intention of the authorities to make it as such is revealed expressly or by necessary implication in the office memorandum. On the other hand from the office memorandum, as noted hereinabove, we find that the candidates who had already been selected, the case of such candidates would not be reopened."

From perusal of the decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, now it has been settled that in the midst of selection process if new guideline has come into operation the said guideline will not come in the selection process and which has already been started on the basis of old guideline. Annexure-7 has been passed by the authorities on the ground at the time of appointment; the new guideline has been implemented by the Government hence the case of the petitioner for his engagement as Anganwadi Worker will govern on the basis of new guideline.

If the facts of the case compared with the facts of the case wherein the judgment has been rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sonia Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, AIR 2007 SC 2932 : (2007) 10 JT 37 : (2007) 9 SCALE 625 : (2007) 10 SCC 627 : (2008) 1 SCC(L&S) 702 : (2007) 8 SCR 883 : (2007) 2 UJ 974 : (2007) AIRSCW 5329 : (2007) 5 Supreme 796 there is similarity of facts.

Thus, on the basis of judgment rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court the Annexure-7 is not sustainable in the eye of law. So far as the centre for which the proposal of the petitioner for engagement as Anganwadi Worker has been made is hereby set aside.

The matter is disposed of directing the authority to take a fresh decision with respect to the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker and take a final decision within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

With such observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

It is made clear that this Court has not entered into the merit of this case.