IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation and application of the Government Resolutions regarding the maximum age for promotion and the cut-off date for selection significantly influenced the court's decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner for the post of “Mukhya Sevika”, Class III and to declare that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for being appointed on such post as per the prescribed norms of the State Government.

2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner has been appointed as Anganvadi Worker under the I.C.D.S. Scheme for Dahod Taluka and accordingly she started working as Anganvadi Worker at Vadbara-2 Anganvadi. That respondent No.3 called for information of the Anganvadi Workers for filling up the post of Mukhya Sevika, who have worked continuously for a period of ten years. Though the petitioner was possessed the minimum education qualification of S.S.C. and fulfilling requisite criteria prescribed for the said appointment, her name was reflected at Sr.No.45 and, therefore she made representation to respondent No.3, however, the same was remained undecided, she preferred Special Civil Application No.14148 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 20.07.2010 directed respondent No.3 to consider the representation and to pass reasoned order in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 21.05.2007. That pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the District Development Officer, Godhra has informed the petitioner that since her age is more than 45 years as on 01.04.2011, her name was not included in the select list and she has not been appointed as the Mukhya Sevika.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned inaction on the part of the respondent – authority in depriving the petitioner for appointment by nomination to the post of Mukhya Sevika, the present petition is filed.

4. Heard Mr.Parimalsinh Parmar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Jay Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 – State Authority and Mr.U. M. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3 and Mr.M. A. Kharadi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

5. Mr.Parimalsinh Parmar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Anganvadi Worker who completed ten years of services as on 20.01.2010 was required to be selected for the post of Mukhya Sevika and the petitioner and others have been forwarded the requisite information to the State Government, she deprived of selection without there being any fault on her part. He would submit that as on 31.03.2010, the petitioner was 44 years and 9 months i.e. below 45 years which is mandatory requirement for selection of the said post. He has submitted that though the name of the petitioner was included in the list at Sr.No.45, she was not selected for the said post. He has submitted that as per the resolutions dated 13.12.2005 and 08.02.2006, the maximum age for promotion to the post of Mukhya Sevika has been fixed at 45 years, whereby the relaxation of 3 years was granted, however, she was discriminated by respondent – authority in not selecting her for the said post. It is submitted by Mr.Parmar, learned counsel that during the earlier recruitment process, there was no “cut off date” applicable for such selection, however, vide Government Resolution dated 21.05.2007, for the first time, the maximum age for the purpose of nomination to the said post has been determined and on that basis, the respondent – authority has treated the petitioner to be above 45 years and, therefore, her case has not been taken into consideration for promotion. He has submitted that one Sabera Shaikh was issued appointment to the post of Mukhya Sevika, who was born in 1963, whereas, the petitioner was born in 1965 and, therefore, the case for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Mukhya Sevika is required to be considered. While referring to the circular issued by the respondent authority, he has submitted that the cut off date is required to be cons