IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 did not discriminate, and the procedure for promotion was undertaken by two separate establishments based on exigencies.

ORDER :

PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.

1. The present appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent are filed by the appellants – original petitioners assailing the correctness and validity of the common order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9589 of 2017 with Special Civil Application No. 10496 of 2017. As both the appeals have common issue, they are taken up together for hearing. The factual aspects considered in Special Civil Application No. 9589 of 2017 are taken as a lead matter.

2. The prayers that were made in the writ petition was to give direction to respondent no. 1 to amend the resolution dated 13.12.2005 and further to add word “Urban” by way of such amendment. It was also prayed that direction be given to respondent no. 4 - Rajkot Municipal Corporation to implement the direction of Programme Officer, ICDS letter dated 29.02.2016 and to appoint petitioner as “Supervisor” .

3. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the Government Resolution was pleased to hold that there is no discriminatory clause in the policy and that the argument canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioners that ‘Anganwadi Workers’ who were working under the District Development Officer were given priority and as such, they stole the march over the petitioners for promotion to the post of ‘Mukhya Sevika’ is meritless and the procedure for promotion to the posts of Mukhya Sevika was undertaken by two separate establishments, depending upon the exigencies which existed there. On such findings, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss both the petitions.

4. The factual matrix which has led to filing of the appeal was that the appellant – original petitioner was working as ‘Anganwadi Worker’ under the Child Development Schemes of the Government of Gujarat. The petitioner was appointed as ‘Anganwadi Worker’ on 11.11.1982 by the respondent – Corporation and, therefore, the age of retirement of the petitioner was 10.11.2020. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2017 and it was the case of the petitioner that she had educational qualification of having passed 12th standard and experience of 35 long years as ‘Anganwadi Worker’, and as such, she deserves to be appointed as Supervisor as per seniority. It was the case of the petitioner that according to the selection criteria, the petitioner achieved 25 marks and even in seniority list, she was show at Serial No. 5 as on 01.10.2010. Thus, it is the case of the appellant that she was working as Anganwadi Worker since the year 1982 and her date of retirement was 10.11.2020 and as such, she should be considered for the post of Mukhya Sevika. It is further the case of the appellant that vide communication dated 19.07.2012 the appellant requested the Rajkot Municipal Corporation to consider her case for promotion to the post of Mukhya Sevika, which was not considered and, therefore, the appellant has to approach this Court by way of filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 9598 of 2017. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition and allied matter by common order dated 07.07.2022 which is the subject matter of present Letters Patent Appeals before us.

5. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Kirtan Mistry appearing for the appellants.

5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Mistry has contended that the appellants - original petitioners were working as ‘Anganwadi Worker’ since the year 1982 and they were at Serial No. 1 and Serial No. 5 respectively as per the seniority list as on 01.10.2020 and as such, they ought to have been given promotion to the post of Mukhya Sevika. However, the learned Single Judge has not considered their case and based upon the interpretation of Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005, has rejected the writ petitions.

5.2. Learned advocate Mr. Mistry has further contended that the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2005 specifically mentions that 50% of the Supervisor posts have to