HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTI CE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI AND HON’BLE JUSTI CE SRI ASHI SH NAI THANI Writ Petition (S/B) No. 558 of 2021 Leela Devi and others -Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Nishant Krishna Adhikari, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Additional CSC for the State Mr. Yash Bisht, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the caveator --------------------------------------------------------------------

The Court made the follow ing:

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)

1. Petitioners are working as Anganwadi Karyakarti in Department of Women Empowerment and Child Development, Government of Uttarakhand. They are aggrieved by Rule 5(ii) of Uttarakhand Mahila Evam Balvikas Adhinasth (Supervisor) Seva Niyamavali, 2021, whereby qualification required for appointment to Group-C post of supervisor, was enhanced from Intermediate to Graduation. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioners have challenged validity of Rule 5 (ii) of the aforesaid Rules.

2. It is contended that the qualification needed for appointment as Supervisor earlier was Intermediate which petitioners possessed; therefore, the qualification cannot be upgraded to graduation so as to render petitioners ineligible.

3. It is contended that petitioners are serving as Anganwadi Karyakartis for last several decades and they were waiting all through for their promotion/appointment to the next higher post of supervisor, but when they became due for promotion, the qualification needed for Supervisor was revised from Intermediate to Graduation, which has resulted in denial of their right to be considered for appointment.

4. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that no one can claim a vested right of appointment or promotion and one must fulfill the eligibility conditions mentioned in the applicable recruitment rules for appointment to a public post.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that the post of Supervisor is not to be filled by promotion and direct recruitment is the only source of recruitment, however, a separate quota has been provided to Anganwadi Karyakarti for appointment as Supervisor.

6. Learned State Counsel further submits that with changing times, it was felt that a candidate with Intermediate qualification would not be able to discharge the multifarious duties of Supervisor, therefore, State Government decided to prescribe Graduation as minimum qualification for appointment as Supervisor.

7. He further submits that the State Government as employer, has plenary power of deciding qualifications needed for a particular post and State Government, in its wisdom, has prescribed Graduation as the qualification, therefore, anyone who do not possess that qualification, is ineligible. He further submits that petitioners should upgrade their qualification if they are desirous of appointment as Supervisor.

8. He further submits that right to be considered for appointment has been declared to be a fundamental right but one has to be eligible as per the applicable rules for appointment and then only he can claim that right.

9. He further submits that process of selection, which was held as per the amended rules, has concluded and it is not known as to whether any unfilled vacancies are now available or not.

10. As per Article 310 of the Indian Constitution, a public servant holds office at the pleasure of the President or the Governor. This has a direct bearing on the powers of Parliament or legislature to make laws or the executive to make rules for specifying conditions of service, as provided under Article 309. The relationship between a state employee and the State originates in contract, but by virtue of the constitutional constraint, coupled with legislative and executive rules governing the service, the relation attains a unique posi