AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 280 wordsHeard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.
2 Petitioner, along with others, has participated in the selection process for selection of Angan Bari Sevika for the Centre in question. Petitioner's case is that she was at Serial No
3 in the merit list. The first candidate did not appear. It is submitted that the second candidate suffered from disqualification in terms of Clause 6 of the Guidelines of 2016. The disqualification being relied upon by the petitioner's counsel is as follows:
"आयोग्यता - सरकारी/गैर सरकारी नियोजन में कार्यरत व्यक्ति जिनकी मासिक आय 12000/- (बारह हजार) रू. या उससे ज्यादा है /जन प्रतिनिधि/संबंधित प्रखंड के जन वितरण प्रणाली बिक्रेता की पत्नी /बहू सेविका/सहायकिा के चयन के लिए आयोग्य होगीं। यदि किसी अभ्यर्थी को किसी न्यायालय से दण्डिता किया गया हो तो उसे भी आगनबाड़ी सेविका/ सहायिका के पद के लिए चयनित नहीं किया जायेगा।"
3 The fact has been considered by the District Magistrate. Taking note of the fact that the father-in-law of the second empanelled candidate, namely Anjana Kumari was not a Government servant and he was only discharging his duties on contractual basis in the Special Auxiliary Police, the District Magistrate has held that the disqualification under Clause 6 of the Guidelines of 2016 is not attracted in the case of the private Respondent.
4 From bare reading of the disqualification Clause, it is apparent that the same contemplates disqualification when husband/father-in-law of the applicant is in Government employment and the same does not speak of any disqualification in respect of contractual employment.
5 Conclusion of the District Magistrate does not require any interference.
6 Writ petition is dismissed.