ORDER :

Songkhupchung Serto, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows:

On 23.11.2017, through a letter No. ICDS/BD/ESTT-06/01/2015-2016, the Child Development Project Officer, Bhandari ICDS Project directed all the Chairmans of the Village Councils including the village of the petitioner and the private respondent No. 6 to submit all the relevant documents of intending candidates duly recommended by the Village Councils on or before 30.11.2017 for the post of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers for which interview would be held on 5th & 6th December, 2017. In that letter, a check list was given and in that check list the following were mentioned;

(i) 3(three) recent colour passport size photo,

(ii) Candidate should be between the age of 18-35 years for both Anganwadi Workers/Helpers (supported by Birth Certificate),

(iii) Anganwadi Workers should be a Matriculate and above and Anganwadi Helpers should be Class-VI (Six) and above duly supported by documents.

(iv) Xerox copies of Aadhaar and bank account details are to be submitted, and

(v) Candidate should be a permanent resident of the village/town.

3. The petitioner also applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker and submitted all her documents as per the check list being Class-XII passed and a resident of Longayim village. However, when the interview result was declared, to her surprise the respondent No. 6 who was not even a Matriculate was selected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant petition.

4. It is submitted by Mr. Sentiyanger, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a resident of Longayim village and the same was supported by a resident certificate issued by the Head G.B. of the village as well as a certificate issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of the Sub-Division and the electoral roll copies of which were annexed to the petition. However, instead of choosing her, the private respondent No. 6 was selected though she did not meet the required minimum educational qualification.

Mr. Sentiyanger further submitted that the appointment of the respondent No. 6 who is not eligible for appointment to the post is illegal and not permissible, therefore, the same need to be quashed and set aside and in her place the petitioner who have the requisite qualification and was the only candidate beside the private respondent should be appointed.

In support of his submission, Mr. Sentiyanger referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCI of Delhi & Ors.), reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58, paragraphs-22 to 24. The contents of the relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein below:

"22. It also needs to be noted that like the present appellant there could be large number of candidates who were not eligible as per the requirement of rules/advertisement since they did not possess the required eligibility on the last date of submission of the application forms. Granting any benefit to the appellant would be violative of the doctrine of equality, a backbone of the fundamental rights under our Constitution. A large number of such candidates may not have applied considering themselves to be ineligible adhering to the statutory rules and the terms of the advertisement.

23. There is no obligation on the Court to protect an illegal appointment. Extraordinary power of the court should be used only in an appropriate case to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the rights of others or create arbitrariness. Usurpation of a post by an ineligible candidate in any circumstance is impermissible. The process of verification and notice of termination in the instant case followed within a very short proximity of the appointment and was not delayed at all so as to even remotely give rise to an expectancy of continuance.

24. The