State cannot discriminate by granting contract appointments to successful litigants from same selection process while providing regular appointments to others, violating Article 14 equality.

The petitioners, by way of present writ petition, have prayed that the respondents be directed to offer them appointment on the posts of Supervisor on regular basis, instead of contract basis and further consider them on regular cadre from the date when the respondents issued the regular appointment orders to 238 candidates with all consequential benefits.

2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Anganwari Workers at different Anganwari Centres in the State of Himachal Pradesh by the respondents and they were discharging their duties with them.

3. On 22.10.2002, the respondents issued advertisement for filling-up the posts of Supervisors (ICDS) and the minimum eligibility criteria was that the Anganwari Workers, who have passed 10th standard from the recognized Board/Institute and have five years service along-with 11 months training as Bal Sevika, are eligible to apply for the post. The said advertisement was published in ‘Amar Ujala’ on 28.10.2002 and the last date for submission of the application form was within 30 days from the date of its issuance and 45 days for the candidates, who are residing in tribal areas i.e. Keylong, Udaipur, Kaza, Pangi, Pooh, Dodra-Kawar and Bharmour. The total number of posts were 242. Some of the persons were not called for the written test on the ground that they were not having the requisite qualifying service of five years as Anganwari Workers as on 28.10.2002 i.e. on the date of publication of the advertisement (Annexure P-1).

4. The Block Anganwari Worker Union had preferred the writ petition, which was registered as CWP(T) No.9192 of 2008, titled, Block Anganwari Workers’ Union and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and this Court vide judgment dated 24.12.2010 had disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents-State to declare the result of the test/interview for the post of Supervisor in the respondent Department held during 2003 and consider the cases of those candidates who have qualified in the said test/interview, in case they were having the requisite qualifying service as Anganwari Workers as on 19.01.2003 i.e. date of written test, within three months from the date of production of the copy of judgment.

5. The respondent-State feeling aggrieved by the said directions issued by the learned Single Judge had preferred the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which was registered as LPA No.205 of 2011, titled, State of H.P and another vs. Block Anganwari Workers Union and another . The Division Bench of this Court on 16.04.2012 had allowed the LPA to the extent that the respondent-State shall complete the process of selection permitting all those applicants for the posts of Anganwari Supervisor, who had acquired the qualification as on the last date for submission of applications i.e. 27.11.2002. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted hereunder:

“8. In the judgment, dated 3.8.2011 in LPA No. 205 of 2011, this Court had, however, taken the view that the candidate must be qualified as on the date of advertisement inviting applications. That also is a case pertaining to the very same selection, as can be seen from the notification inviting applications. No cut-off date has been fixed for acquiring the qualification either in the Rules or in the notification inviting applications. Therefore, it is a case falling under the third category and hence the candidate need be qualified only by the last date for submission of the application. Since the judgment does not correctly reflect the settl