Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—The petitioner is working as Mukhya Sevika in Integrated Child Development Services-III (for short, “ICDS”) on contract basis. She is seeking her promotion from the post of Anganwadi worker to Mukhya Sevika, ICDS (General). Her claim has been rejected by the second respondent vide order dated 11.10.2012. She has instituted this writ proceeding challenging the said order.

2. The salient and necessary facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Anganwadi Karyakatri (Worker). She continued to work up to 27.9.2002 and thereafter she was appointed as Mukhya Sevika in ICDS-III in the month of August 2002. Since then she has been regularly discharging her duties.

3. An advertisement was issued on 23.1.2006 inviting applications for the appointment to the posts of Mukhya Sevika. The petitioner, who was working as a Mukhya Sevika on contract basis in ICDS-III, made an application for her promotion on the post of Mukhya Sevika but her case was not considered on the ground that at the time of her initial appointment in the year 1985 she was less than 18 years and hence her experience will be counted from the date when she attained 18 years in age and in view of the said fact her case was not considered. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 13.4.2007.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner preferred a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 5940 (S/S) of 2007, wherein a direction was issued for consideration of her claim. Accordingly, the petitioner moved a representation which were rejected vide order dated 25.1.2008.

5. The petitioner challenged the said order by means of Writ Petition No. 1128 (S/S) of 2008. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 15.1.2009 quashing the impugned order dated 25.1.2008. This Court issued a direction for fresh consideration of the petitioner.

6. The second respondent again rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 30.4.2010 reiterating the same ground that at the time of his initial appointment, the petitioner was less than 18 years hence she was not entitled for appointment. The petitioner was compelled to file a third writ petition i.e. Service Single No. 6480 (S/S) of 2010. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on 31.7.2012.

7. Relevant would it be to mention that the reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 11.10.2012 that since the petitioner was less than 18 years and she was not entitled for the promotion, were considered by the learned Single Judge and the said plea was rejected by the Court following a judgment of a Division Bench in the case of Smt. Ram Devi v. Director Bal Vikas Pustahar, U.P., Lucknow and others, 2005 (3) LCD 1511. This Court, on third time, passed the order dated 31.7.2012 and again remitted the matter back to the authority concerned to consider it in the light of the judgment in Smt. Ram Devi (supra). However, in compliance of the said order, the impugned order dated 11.10.2012 has been passed again reiterating the same stand, which the authority had repeatedly taken on three previous occasions.

8. A counter-affidavit has been filed. In the counter-affidavit the stand taken in the impugned order in the present writ petition and the earlier impugned orders which were passed from time to time, as mentioned above, has been reiterated.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Verma and the learned Standing Counsel.

10. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s claim has been rejected three times by the authority concerned on the ground that at the time of her initial appointment she was underage. The Division Bench had an occasion to consider the said issue in Smt. Ram Devi (supra) and has held that the view taken by the authority concerned is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Ram Devi (supra).

11. Next, he submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated