Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI
Sharda Ladna W/o Late Shri Harlal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Directorate Of Integrated Child Development Service – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner sought relief against cancellation based on eligibility issues. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court upheld strict adherence to eligibility requirements as per statutory provisions. (Para 4 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13) |
| 3. petitioner contested cancellation, claiming eligibility criteria were misapplied. (Para 6) |
| 4. appointments made in violation of statutory criteria are considered void. (Para 12) |
| 5. the court ultimately dismissed the petition as lacking merits. (Para 14) |
Order :
1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):
“It is therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:
i. By an appropriate writ order or direction, impugned order dated 24.04014 at Annx.P/13 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.
ii. By an order or direction respondents may be directed to take the petitioner on duty on the post of Supervision Women with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances with 9% interest.
iii. Exemplary cost be imposed on the respondents for causing undue harassmen
Appointments made against statutory provisions are void ab initio, and eligibility criteria must be strictly adhered to.
Anganwadi Workers selected for Supervisor posts are entitled to substantive appointments and benefits retroactively from their initial engagement date, regardless of contractual arrangements.
The State must adhere to central guidelines mandating a 50%:50% ratio for filling Supervisor vacancies under ICDS, rejecting any conflicting state rules.
The court determined that an advertisement's qualification criteria were valid as per guidelines, and the rejection of an eligible applicant was unjustified, emphasizing adherence to legal standards ....
'Preferably' in qualifications is recommendatory, not mandatory; applies as tie-breaker on equal merit.
The court ruled that the appointment of an Anganwadi Worker must adhere to government guidelines, and challenges to such appointments require timely action and proper standing.
State cannot discriminate by granting contract appointments to successful litigants from same selection process while providing regular appointments to others, violating Article 14 equality.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
