Reshma Devi vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By means of this petition, petitioner has challenged the advertisement dated 29.12.2018 (Annexure No.6) issued by respondent no.2 with regard to the position of Anganwadi Karyakatri, Pali, Block Dugadda, District Pauri Garhwal as well as the order dated 13.03.2019 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure No.7 to the writ petition) whereby the representation of petitioner has been rejected by respondent no.4 besides other ancillary relief.

It is the case of petitioner that petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.12.2017, submitted her candidature for the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri in Anganwadi Center, Pali, Block Dugadda, District Pauri Garhwal. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 08.12.2017, three candidates submitted their applications for the said post. The petitioner, being a Below Poverty Line (BPL) category candidate, participated in the selection process and her name found place at Serial No.01 with -9- quality point marks which is reflected from Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. But instead of issuing the appointment/ engagement letter to the petitioner, the respondent no.3 re-advertised the said position of Anganwadi Center, Pali, Block Dugadda, District Pauri Garhwal by issuing a fresh advertisement dated 29.12.2018 which is impugned in the present writ petition.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that without culminating the selection-process which were initiated with the issuance of earlier advertisement dated 08.12.2017, the respondent-State cannot issue the subsequent advertisement for the same vacancies, when the selection was not over. It is brought to the notice of this Court that while hearing this very writ petition as fresh, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had passed an interim order dated 21.01.2019 in favour of petitioner directing the respondent no.4 to decide the representation of petitioner within two weeks thereafter.

The respondent no.4 rejected the representation of petitioner vide order dated 13.03.2019 which is also impugned in the present writ petition, by amending the petition.

It is only from the said order dated 13.03.2019 whereby the representation of petitioner was rejected, it has come to the knowledge of petitioner that the cause for re-advertisement was that eligibility criteria has been changed by the respondents so far as it relates to BPL category candidates, and according to that changed criteria, the petitioner does not fall within the category of BPL.

The respondent nos.2 to 4 have filed their counter affidavit and in the counter affidavit, it is mainly contended that the enquiry was initiated on some complaint and the District Appellate Authority recommended vide letter dated 19.12.2018 to publish fresh advertisement for the said post, and accordingly, the subsequent advertisement was issued.

The rejoinder affidavit was filed by the petitioner and in that rejoinder affidavit, Annexure RA3 is annexed which is issued by the Block Development Officer, Dugadda Garhwal, whereby the BPL certificate was issued to the petitioner and according to this BPL certificate, the petitioner family belongs to BPL category and the certificate is valid up to 31.12.2018 (although learned counsel for the petitioner states it to have been valid upto 31.12.2019). The said position, as stated above by the petitioner in rejoinder affidavit, has not been denied by the respondent-State regarding the validity of the certificate issued subsequently by which the petitioner was considered in BPL category.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, it is reflected that the only ground on the basis of which the post of ‘Anganwadi Karyakatri’ was re-advertised is that family of petitioner does not belong to BPL category. It is evidently clear from the record that even on the date when the post was advertised and petitioner submitted her candidature for the said position of Anganwadi Karyakatri, she belonged to BPL category and moreover, even subsequent thereto, she was very well within the fold of BPL family.

In this view of the matter, there appears to be no justification for re-advertising the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri subsequently vide advertisement dated 29.12.2018 issued by respondent no.2. There is no denial of this legal position that eligibility of a candidate is always to be seen on the date of advertisement, or at the most, on the last date of submission of application form.

In this view of matter, the eligibility of petitioner cannot be found faulted with and, accordingly, she cannot be denied the rights which had already accrued in her favour on being selected and securing position at Serial No.01 of the select list for the aforesaid position.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned advertisement dated 29.12.2018 (Annexure No.6) issued by respondent no.2, qua position of Anganwadi Karyakatri, Angwanwadi Center, Pali, Block Dugadda, District Pauri Garhwal, on which petitioner was already selected, and the impugned rejection order dated 13.03.2019 passed by respondent no.4 (Annexure No.7 to petition) are hereby quashed. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are directed, by issuing a writ of mandamus, to immediately issue appointment/engagement letter to the petitioner on the basis of her selection as ‘Anganwadi Karyakatri’ pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.12.2017 for Anganwadi Center Pali, Block Dugadda, District Pauri Garhwal. The same shall be done immediately but not later than one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.