Smt. Savita Tripathi vs State of MP and others

Rajendra Menon, Judge

Challenging the orders concurrently passed by the Collector and the Commissioner, holding the petitioner to be ineligible for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was appointed vide Annexure P/1 dated 5.2.2007 on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta. The appointment was made in pursuance to an advertisement issued for appointment vide Annexure P/3, on 27.5.2006, and the policy for appointment as contained in the circular-Annexure P/4 dated 10.7.2007. Infact in both-the circular as well as the advertisement issued, it is clearly stipulated that the age of a candidate shall be determined with reference to the cut-off date fixed as on 1st of January of the year in which the selection is to be done. In the present case, the selection was initiated in the year 2006 and as on 1.1.2006 and even on the date when the advertisement was issued, petitioner was below 18 years of age.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on the date of appointment when Annexure P/1 dated 5.2.2007 was issued, the petitioner was more than 18 years of age and, therefore, the appointment is proper.

A perusal of the order-Annexure P/2 dated 5.8.2009 passed by the Collector indicates that for appointment to the post in question, the advertisement was issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Women and Child Welfare on 27.5.2006, and the process was initiated by publishing the same on 2.2.2007 in the daily newspaper in Shahdol. The concurrent findings recorded by both the authorities are that on the date when the advertisement was issued and on 1st of January of the year when the selection was to be done, petitioner was only 17 years and 11 months of age and was thus ineligible for appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner wants this Court to hold that the petitioner was more than 18 years of age on 5.2.2007, when the appointment took place.

The date of appointment of the petitioner is not the crucial date. The crucial dates are the date on which the advertisement is issued or the cut-off date fixed as per the policy. In the policy-Annexure P/4, the cut-off date has to be calculated with reference to 1st of January of the year for which the selection is to be made and as on 1st of January, 2006 petitioner is less than 18 years of age. The concurrent findings recorded by the Collector and the Commissioner do not call for any interference. Accordingly, finding no case for interference on the grounds raised, the petition is dismissed.