Smt. Nikku Devi vs State (Women and Child) and Others

Dinesh Maheshwari

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and after having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to consider interference in the writ jurisdiction in this matter. Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter leading to this writ petition are as follows : The petitioner Smt. Nikku Devi had been one of the applicants for the post of Aanganwari Worker alongwith the respondent No. 6 Smt. Radha Pyari and a few others. The Gram Panchayat concerned considered the candidates and selected the respondent No. 6. The petitioner, however, raised objection on the selection of the respondent No. 6, inter alia, on the ground that she (the petitioner) was having better educational qualifications and was standing higher in merit. The concerned Child Development Project Officer, by his order dated 27.01.2009, proceeded to cancel the selection of the respondent No. 6; and, in her place, issued selection order in favour of the present petitioner. It appears that the order so passed in favour of the petitioner was put to challenge by the respondent No. 6 by filing a writ petition (CWP No. 857/2009) in this Court wherein, an interim order was passed on 04.02.2009. After receiving the said interim order, the concerned Child Development Project Officer proceeded to issue an order on 12.02.2009 (Annex. 6) whereby Smt. Radha Pyari, the present respondent No. 6, was allowed to work as the Aanganwari Worker; and the selection order of the petitioner Smt. Nikku Devi was cancelled with immediate effect. It does not appear if the petitioner attempted to question the said order dated 12.02.2009 in any proceedings. The said writ petition continued for some time and was, ultimately, considered on 25.11.2011 when a co-ordinate Bench of this Court noticed the fact of passing of the order dated 12.02.2009 whereby the earlier order dated 27.01.2009 was withdrawn; and on this count, considered the said writ petition infructuous and dismissed the same as such. The order dated 25.11.2011 reads as under:-

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

The impugned order dtd. 27.1.2009 (Annex. 7) has been superseded during pendency of this writ petition which was filed on 2.2.2009 vide order Annex. R/2 dtd. 12.2.2009 and selection of private respondent - Smt. Niku Devi as Aanganwari worker was cancelled by said subsequent order dtd. 12.2.2009 and services of petitioner Smt. Radha Pyari were retained. As such with the withdrawal of impugned order (Annex. 7) dtd. 27.1.2009, vide Annex. R/2 dtd. 12.5.2009, this writ petition has become infructuous.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

A cumulative effect of the proceedings and the orders aforesaid had been that the earlier order dated 27.01.2009 as passed in favour of the petitioner was treated to have been superseded by the order dated 12.02.2009. However, after dismissal of the said writ petition (CWP No. 857/2009), the Deputy Director, Women & Child Development Department, Hanumangarh addressed a communication dated 11.01.2012 (Annex. 10) to the Child Development Project Officer, Rawatsar to the effect that the writ petition having been dismissed as infructuous, Smt. Nikku Devi (the present petitioner) ought be delivered the charge of the post concerned for compliance of the orders of the Court. However, the very next day, i.e., on 12.01.2012, the Deputy Director proceeded to withdraw the said order dated 11.01.2012 with reference to the guidance received from the Additional Director in his communication dated 05.01.2012 to the effect that no further proceedings were requisite in the matter.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the said order dated 12.01.2012 (Annex.11). It is also prayed that the respondents may be directed to comply with the order dated 27.01.2009 whereby the petitioner was selected on the post of Aanganwari Worker.

The claim as made in this writ petition is bereft of an existing legal right and rather, on the position and status of record as obtaining at present, no such relief can be granted to the petitioner.

As noticed, at the initial stage, it was the respondent No. 6 who got selected on the post of Aanganwari Worker but on a complaint made by the petitioner, her selection order was cancelled and, instead, the selection order was issued in favour of the petitioner. However, such selection of the petitioner was put to challenge by the respondent No. 6 in the aforesaid writ petition (CWP No. 857/2009) wherein, an interim order was passed by this Court on 04.02.2009. In the purported compliance of such interim order, the Child Development Project Officer proceeded to issue the order dated 12.02.2009 with directions that the present respondent No. 6 (Smt. Radha Pyari) shall be allowed to work as the Aanganwari Worker; but at the same time, for whatever reason, cancelled the selection order as made in favour of the present petitioner. It is noticed that the said order dated 12.02.2009 was also endorsed to the petitioner. The petitioner chose not to challenge the said order at the relevant time and on the other hand, the said writ petition (CWP No. 857/2009) remained pending. On 25.11.2011, a co-ordinate Bench considered the position of the record and treated the said writ petition, as filed by the present respondent No. 6, infructuous for the reason that by the order dated 12.02.2009, selection of the present petitioner Smt. Nikku Devi was cancelled and the respondent No. 6 Smt. Radha Pyari (petitioner in the said writ petition) was retained in service.

Put in a nutshell, it is apparent that selection of the petitioner was cancelled by the order dated 12.02.2009; and because of this reason, the aforesaid writ petition as filed by the present respondent No. 6 Smt. Radha Pyari was treated as infructuous while noticing that she (Smt. Radha Pyari) has been retained in service. The obvious consequence of the orders aforesaid is that the petitioner Smt. Nikku Devi has nothing of existing legal right that could be enforced by any writ, order or direction.

The order dated 11.01.2012 as issued by the Deputy Director was obviously not in c onformity with the position of the record and, therefore, was rightly withdrawn the very next day.

It is submitted during the course of arguments that the petitioner has now challenged the order dated 25.11.2011 as passed in CWP No. 857/2009 in an intra-court appeal. Suffice is to observe in this regard that the petitioner is, of course, free to take recourse to the appropriate remedies in accordance with law but in the present status of the record and in the position obtainable at present, the petitioner cannot be granted the relief of being appointed in place of the respondent No. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands dismissed.