Suitability in selection processes is distinct from eligibility; higher qualifications do not guarantee selection if another candidate scores higher.

N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by respondent No.2, whereby, the respondent No.3 was appointed as Asha Worker in Village Bishangarh/Katakheri, District Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has obtained her Bachelor of Arts degree from Punjabi University, Patiala and thereafter, she also passed her Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Application from Punjabi University, Patiala in the year 2015. On 02.01.2025, respondent No.2 had issued a letter to A.N.M village Kheri Ranwa and Chairperson village Health Safai and Food Committee, Village Bishangarh mentioning therein that the post of Asha Worker was lying vacant and the applications may be called from the interested candidates for the post of Asha Worker. On 09.01.2025, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Village Bishangarh, District Patiala had passed a resolution (Annexure P-5) to the effect that Jasbir Kaur, Asha Worker had resigned from the post and the post has become vacant. Consequently, the petitioner may be appointed on the post of Asha Worker. Even, on 14.01.2025, the petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure P-6) to the respondent No.2 and requested to appoint her as Asha Worker being fully eligible for the said post. Thereafter, on 29.01.2025, the interview for the said post was held and later on, on 03.02.2025, the result was declared and respondent No.3 was wrongly appointed as Asha Worker. Learned counsel further submits that while passing the impugned order dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure P-7), respondent No.2 had not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was much more qualified than respondent No.3. On the date of interview, the petitioner was holding same degree and also possessed Diploma in Computer Application from Punjabi University, whereas, on the other hand, respondent No.3 had not even qualified 10^th class. Consequently, the selection of respondent No.3 is liable to be set aside by this Court.

3. On the other hand learned State counsel submits that the Government of India had decided to launch a National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) to address the health needs of rural population, especially the vulnerable sections of the society and had decided to appoint a Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) for the said purpose. Even certain guidelines on Asha Workers were issued and the following criteria was laid down for selection of Asha Worker:-

Criteria for Selection “ASHA must be primarily a woman resident of the village- Married/Widow/Divorced' and preferably in the age group of 25 to

45 yrs.

ASHA should have effective communication skills, leadership qualities and be able to reach out to the community. She should be a literate woman with formal education up to Eighth Class. This may be relaxed only if no suitable person with this qualification is available.

Adequate representation from disadvantaged population groups should be ensured to serve such groups better.”.

Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 had applied for the post of Asha Worker and after holding the interview, respondent No.3 was found more suitable for the post. The petitioner secured 11 marks, whereas, Meena Rani, respondent No.3 had secured 12 marks and was found suitable for the post and accordingly, selected by the official respondents. He further contends that even respondent No.3 also possessed the requisite education qualifications for the said post as respondent No.3