Sumgangla Devi and Others vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Others

Kurian Joseph, C.J.—The writ Petitioners/Appellants filed the writ petition with the following prayer:

That the act of the Respondents in not considering the applicants for appointment against the posts of Supervisors on unreasonable grounds and in making the appointments of other Anganwari Workers/Bal Sevikas against the posts of Supervisors despite the pendency of O.A. No. 127/2003, titled as Anita Randhawa and Ors. v. the State of H.P. and Ors. may kindly be declared illegal arbitrary, contrary, unjust invalid, viodabinitio, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law and all the appointments made by the Respondents against the posts of Supervisors from amongst the Anganwari workers and Bal Sevikas may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.

The issue pertains to the appointment of Anganwari Supervisors in Kangra District. In O.A. (D) No. 127 of 2003, the prayer reads as follows:

That the impugned Notification 28102002 vide Notification 14/73WelEast may kindly be quashed and set aside because the applicants have completed requisite qualification and experience for the requisite posts and the Respondents have adopt the pick and choose method for the above said posts or the roll numbers of the applicants be issued before the screening test date i.e. 19012003.

The O.A. was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 20th September, 2006. The order reads as follows:

The learned Counsel for the applicant has made a request to withdraw the present Original Application. Request allowed. The present Original Application is dismissed having been withdrawn. Original Application stands finally disposed of. Interim order passed on January 10, 2003 is hereby vacated.

It is seen from the interim order dated 10th January, 2003 that the erstwhile H.P. Administrate Tribunal had permitted to interview the Petitioners, provisionally, in accordance with the rules. O.A. No. 2215 of 2005 was filed only on 1.9.2005, which was later on renumbered as CWP (T) No. 12569 of 2008. There appears to be an illadvised move on the part of the Petitioners for withdrawal of O.A. (D) No. 127 of 2003. On close scrutiny of the prayers, whether the Petitioners had been pursuing independent reliefs, has also to be looked into. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on two grounds, one on account of unconditional withdrawal of O.A. (D) No. 127 of 2003 and the other, nonimpleading of the affected parties. As already observed above, if the prayers are closely scrutinized and the grounds taken by the Petitioners are also seen, though there is overlapping, it can be seen that there is a basic and distinct contention regarding qualification based on the last date of the submission of the application. No doubt, all the affected parties are not impleaded, but the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that there are still vacancies available in Kangra District and therefore, even without claiming any seniority or without affecting the interests of those, already appointed, their case can be independently considered. It is also submitted that some of the Petitioners may not be in a position to participate in a fresh selection, being over aged.

The law is well settled that in the absence of any specification as to the date of acquisition of qualification, it is to be reckoned as on the last date of the submission of the application, as laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, If that be so, the qualification had to be reckoned on the basis of the last date of the submission of the application i.e. 27.11.2002.

In the above circumstances, it is directed that if as on 27.11.2002, any of the Appellants had acquired the requisite qualification and in case they have been found otherwise eligible in the interview already conducted as per the interim direction issued in O.A. (D) No. 127 of 2003 and in case vacancies are still available in Kangra District, withdrawal of O.A. (D) No. 127 of 2003 shall not stand in the way of the Appellants for being considered for appointment as Anganwari Supervisors. To that extent, the judgment under appeal will stand modified.

With these observations, the LPA is disposed of. The needful action in that regard by the competent authority shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the Appellants before the competent authority.

In view of the disposal of the main matter, CMP(T) No. 163 of 2011 filed for restoring O.A. (D) No. 127 of 2003 also stands disposed of.