Smt. Madhu Bisht vs State of Uttarakhand and others

ALOK SINGH, J.

An advertisement was published on 29.07.2010 inviting applications for the post of Aaganwari Karyakarti. Petitioner and respondent no. 6 applied

for the post. Initially, petitioner was selected. A complaint was made by Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi and matter was referred to the Appellate Committee

for inquiry. The Appellate Committee re-examined the matter and found some irregularities in selection and the Appellate Committee, accordingly,

directed the Appointing Authority to appoint respondent no. 6. Candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that petitioner is resident of

Village - Yashwant Nagar, Nai Basti and not resident of Village - Yashwant Nagar and respondent no. 6 is more qualified. Feeling aggrieved,

petitioner approached this Court.

Heard Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. J.S. Virk, Advocate for

respondent no. 6.

Case of the petitioner is that as per condition laid down in the advertisement, candidate should be resident of the same Village / Majre / Tok / Ward

wherefor post is advertised and in case, resident of that area in not available, then Department can select candidate from other area.

Contention of the petitioner is that petitioner is resident of Village - Yashwant Nagar while respondent no. 6 is resident of Village - Aampokhar,

therefore, petitioner being candidate of Village -

Yashwant Nagar is entitled to be appointed. Petitioner has also enclosed permanent resident certificate of both the parties.

From perusal of record, it transpires that petitioner is resident of Village - Yashwant Nagar while respondent no. 6 is resident of Village -

Aampokhara. Respondent no. 2 has rejected the candidature of the petitioner saying that petitioner is resident of Village - Yashwant Nagar, Nai Basti

and not resident of Village - Yashwant Nagar, therefore, as per Government Order, they had proceeded to select another candidate and accordingly,

selected respondent no. 6.

Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Village - Yaswant Nagar and Village - Yashwant Nagar, Nai Basti are one and

same place. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Annexure No. 1 to the rejoinder affidavit whereby it is informed by the Naib

Tehsildar that Village Yashwant Nagar and Village Yashwant Nagar Nai Basti are one and same village.

From the above discussion, it can safely be said that petitioner is resident of Village Yashwant Nagar and Village Yashwant Nagar, Nai Basti and

Village Yashwant Nagar are one and same place, therefore, petitioner deserves to be appointed.

Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.06.2011 is quashed. Respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post

Aaganbari Karyakarti forthwith in place of respondent no. 6, if she is otherwise eligible as per advertisement dated 29.07.2010.