Back
2022 Supreme(HP) 756
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Kumari Sharmila Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others – Respondents
CWPOA No. 282 of 2019
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Sunil Chauhan, B.S. Ranjan.
For the Respondents: Sudhir Bhatnagar, Svaneel Jaswal, Sunil Mohan Goel.
Point of Law : It is clarified that she shall be entitled for financial benefits from the date of appointment, though she shall be entitled for continuity in service alongwith seniority from the date, appointment was given to respondent No. 4.
Headnote:
Employment and Service matter – Applications – Appointment - Post of Anganwari Worker - Case, as emerge from the record, are that Gram Panchayat Nohradhar, Division Bench, Sub Tehsil Nohradhar, invited applications for post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Bhog Bhatewri, Annexure A-2. As per said notice, inviting applications, candidates between the age of 21 to 35 years, having qualification of matriculation and middle standard could participate - Petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates especially respondent No. 4 participated in the interview but she despite being more meritorious was not offered appointment against post of Anganwari Worker in the centre, rather, respondent No. 4, who was less educated, came to be appointed against post in question - Being aggrieved on account of selection of respondent No. 4, petitioner approached Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application praying for reliefs, as reproduced above - In instant case, both petitioner and respondent No. 4 have not been given any marks qua experience because they failed to place on record document suggestive of fact that they have some experience as Anganwadi Worker/Bal Sevika organizer of feeding centre under SNP of Welfare Department. Para 7
Finding of Court :
In notice inviting application annexure A-2, it has been mentioned that married woman shall be given preference but there is no such provision in policy, rather para 4 of policy clearly suggests that post of Anganwadi Worker falling vacant due to marriage of Anganwadi Worker should be filled up within one month meaning thereby even unmarried person can be appointed as Anganwadi Worker but after her marriage, if she shifts permanently to other place, she is required to resign within one month from her having shifted to other place - In case at hand, though respondent No. 4 being middle pass was eligible for the post in question, but since person having passed matriculation was available, there was no occasion for Gram Panchayat concerned to offer appointment to respondent No. 4 - Moreover, while awarding marks, interview committee ought not have awarded equal marks under educational qualification head to petitioner and respondent No. 4, because admittedly, petitioner ought to have been given more marks than respondent No. 4 being matriculate.
Result : Petition stands disposed of
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the appointment of respondent No. 4 Smt. Anita Devi as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Village Bhog Bhatewri, Sub Tehsil Nohradhar, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, petitioner approached Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA No. 3284 of 2001, which on account on abolition of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, stands transferred to this court and re-registered as CWPOA No. 282 of 2019 praying therein for following reliefs:
“(a) That the respondents be directed to quash the appointment of respondent No. 4.
(b) That the respondent, be directed to issue appointment to the applicant from retrospective effect with all consequential benefits.”
2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that Gram Panchayat Nohradhar, Division Bench Sangrah, Sub Tehsil Nohradhar, invited applications for the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Bhog Bhatewri, Annexure A-2. As per said notice, inviting applications, candidates between the age of 21 to 35 years, having qualification of matriculation and middle standard could participate. Petitioner alongwith other eligible candidates especially respondent No. 4 Smt. Anita Devi participated in the interview but she despite being more meritorious was not offered appointment against the post of Anganwari Worker in the centre, rather, respondent No. 4 Anita Devi, who was less educated, came to be appointed against the post in question. Being aggrieved on account of selection of respondent No. 4, petitioner approached Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application praying for reliefs, as reproduced above.
3. Pursuant to notices issued in the proceedings, respondents nos. 1 and 2 have filed reply, wherein, though facts as noted above, have not been disputed but it has been claimed that appointment given by Gram Panchayat Kullu was required to be laid challenge before Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kullu in whose jurisdiction, Gram Panchayat falls. Respondent No. 4 Anita Devi has also filed reply, wherein she has claimed that she has been rightly appointed to post in question being fully eligible in terms of advertisement Annexure A-2.
4. Mr. B.S. Ranjan and Mr. Sunil Chauhan, Advocates representing the petitioner, while inviting attention of this court to the policy formulated by Government of Himachal Pradesh, for appointment of Anganwari Worker/Helpers by Gram Panchayats under ICDS programme (annexure R-1) of reply filed by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, contended that person having passed matric, is required to be given preference, while making appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. He submitted that though as per aforesaid guidelines, persons having passed middle standard is also eligible for the post in question but such person shall be only considered, if a person having passed tenth class is not available. He further submitted that as per policy, 10 marks in total are required to be assigned qua qualification but in the case at hand, both petitioner and respondent No. 4 despite there being difference in educational qualification have been awarded 6 marks each. He submitted that the petitioner was tenth pass as such, ought to have been awarded higher marks than respondent No. 4, who was just middle pass.
5. Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, while inviting attention of this court to notice inviting applications, annexure A-2 contended that person having passed middle standard is also eligible to be appointed to the post in question as such, it cannot be said that respondent No. 4 has been wrongly appointed. He stated that since preference was to be given to married woman, respondent No. 4 being married woman, rightly came to be appointed against the post in question. He further submitted that otherwise also, as per instructions imparted to him, petitioner now stands married and settled in some other village as such not
