Priya Saini vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The present special appeal is directed against the order dated 19.05.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.140 of 2020, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant was dismissed.

The appellant had preferred the said writ petition to assail the selection of respondent no.3 as an Anganbari Karyakatri, pursuant to the advertisement issued by the District Programme Officer, Child Development, Haridwar. The selection of respondent no.3 was challenged on the ground that she did not meet the requirement of residence. It was claimed by the appellant-writ petitioner that respondent no.3 was a resident of Mohalla Lakarhara, while the post of Anganbari Karyakatri was invited from Mohalla Neel Khudana.

The learned Single Judge did not find any merit in this submission, since on the complaint of the appellant, the Tehsildar, Haridwar was called upon to submit a report with regard to the residential status of respondent no.3, and the Tehsildar, Haridwar gave a report that respondent no.3 was a permanent resident of Mohalla Neel Khudana and her husband died in the year 2015. Further, the appeal preferred by the appellant before the Appellate Authority too was rejected. Consequently, the learned Single Judge did not find any merit in this writ petition. The learned Single Judge has also relied upon the stand of respondent-authorities in Paragraph No.12 of their counter-affidavit.

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has gone ahead, and directed respondent no.2 to appoint respondent no.3, if not already appointed, within two weeks. He submits that such a direction could not have been issued in the appellant’s writ petition.

We do not find any merit in this submission. If, as a result of the appellant’s writ petition, the appointment of respondent no.3 was interdicted, it was only fair that while dismissing the writ petition, the said direction was issued, lest respondent no.3 is not granted appointment, despite her selection.

We do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Since we have examined the present appeal on merits, we are not going into the aspect of delay.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.