HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Writ Petition S No 5873 of 2010
Smt Sunderwati Yadav
State of Chhattisgarh and others
! Shri VK Pandey counsel for the petitioner
^ Shri Chandresh Shrivastava PL for the respondents 12 and 4 Shri Pankaj Agrawal counsel for respondent No 3
CORAM: Honble Mr Justice Pritinker Diwaker J
WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
O R D E R
Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that though she has secured 5th rank in the merit list of Supervisors in the Women and Child Development Department but the appointment on that post has not been given to her.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that advertisement (Annexure P-2) was issued by the Directorate, Women and Child Development Department, Raipur for the post of Supervisor according to which 554 posts were to be filled up by way of open direct recruitment whereas 185 posts by way of limited direct recruitment from amongst the candidates already working as Anganwadi Worker. As per the eligibility condition, for the post of Supervisor the candidate to be appointed through limited direct recruitment was required to have ten years continuous service as Anganwadi Worker. Petitioner's case here is that at the time of filling-in the form and even on the date of appearing in the examination, she was working as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre Kadampura, Nagar Panchayat Pratappur, District Sarguja and had an experience of about 13 years. According to her, she was issued admit card (Annexure P-3) and on result of the examination being declared, she is said to have secured 150.785 marks. On 12.4.2010 a letter (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner asking her to appear in the counseling to be held on 19.4.2010. Petitioner has also filed experience certificate (Annexure P-5) to show that she has worked as Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre Kadampara, Nagar Panchayat Pratappur, District Sarguja from 31.7.1996 to 11.6.2009. Further case of the petitioner is that when the final select list (Annexure P-1) was issued on 7.5.2010, her name did not find place therein. According to the case of the petitioner, vide order dated 29.5.2009 (Annexure P-6) she was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I and that she joined the said post on 13.6.2009.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that candidature of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by the authorities merely on the ground that on the date of counseling she was not serving as Anganwadi Worker and had joined the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I. He further submits that as per the advertisement the only requirement was to have 10 years experience as Anganwadi Worker and it was nowhere mentioned in the same that at the time of counseling the candidate is required to have been working on the said post. According to the counsel for the petitioner, having experience of 13 years at the time of filling-in examination form and on the date of appearing in the examination makes the petitioner qualified to be appointed as Supervisor and as such her candidature therefor should not have been rejected by the department.
4. Replying to the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted by the counsel for respondents 1,2 and 4 that as per the advertisement the post of Supervisor was to be filled up by way of open direct recruitment as also by way of limited direct recruitment from amongst the Anganwadi Workers. He submits that once the petitioner had appeared in the examination as in-service candidate for limited direct recruitment for the post of Supervisor, basic requirement for the said purpose was that she should be in service at the time of counseling. He submits that undisputedly, the petitioner had resigned the post of Anganwadi Worker on 12.6.2009 and joined as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I on 13.6.2009. According to him, very purpose of conducting limited direct recruitment from amongst the Anganwadi Workers is to facilitate their appointment as Supervisor through the department itself and for such candidates as many as 185 posts were reserved limiting the competition amongst the candidates already working as Anganwadi Workers.
5. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, advocate appearing for respondent No.3 supports the arguments advanced by counsel for respondents 1,2 and 4.
6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record.
7. From the advertisement (Annexure P-2) and the Chhattisgarh Women and Child Development Department Executive Class III (Non- Gazetted) Recruitment Service Rules, 2008 (Annexure R-2), it is apparent that two modes were provided for the recruitment to the post of Supervisor - (i) by way of open direct recruitment i.e. by selection through competitive examination, and (ii) by way of limited direct recruitment from amongst Anganwadi Workers and for that the procedure to be followed has been given in Rule 12 of the aforementioned Rules. The advertisement makes it clear that 534 posts of Supervisor were kept for being filled up by way of open direct recruitment and 185 by way of limited direct recruitment. Petitioner is interpreting the eligibility condition as provided in the advertisement in which it has been mentioned that Anganwadi Worker is required to have at least ten years continuous experience on 1.4.2009. This condition has been provided in the advertisement to judge the eligibility of the candidate and unless the candidate is having ten yeas continuous experience as Anganwadi Worker as on 1.4.2009, she cannot be permitted to appear in the examination. While amending the Rules in the year 2008 it has been clearly mentioned in paragraph 7 of the notification as under:
"In Rule 12, for the words "following procedure shall be adopted for providing opportunity to Anganwadi Workers having required qualification for limited Direct Recruitment as a supervisor. But not exceed 25% workers" the words "To provide the opportunities for the post supervisor, to eligible Anganwadi Workers, the 25% vacancies of supervisors shall be filled by the Limited Direct Recruitment the following process be adopted for this purpose" shall be substituted.
Very purpose of conducting Limited Direct Recruitment is to facilitate the departmental candidates who are working as Anganwadi Worker for being appointed as Supervisor. Admittedly, on the date of counseling the petitioner was not working as Anganwadi Worker and that way she cannot be treated as departmental candidate as she had resigned from the said post on 12.6.2009 and jointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-I on 13.6.2009. This Court does not find any force in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has acquired experience of 13 years and therefore her candidature for the post of Supervisor should not have been rejected by the department. When it is clear that on the date of counseling the petitioner was not working as Anganwadi Worker, under no circumstance, she could be considered for the post of Supervisor when she had appeared in the limited direct recruitment examination.
8. It is a matter of common knowledge that when a facility has been provided to departmental candidates to appear in the examination through limited direct recruitment, the candidate is supposed to be in service till he/ she gets finally selected for the desired post, so as to get the advantage thereof. Mere rendering 13 years of service by the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker, then resigning the same and subsequently joining the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-I, as has happened in the case in hand, does not make her eligible for the post of Supervisor by way of limited direct recruitment. Having thus seen the entire sequence of events, act of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Supervisor is fully justified.
9. Petition thus being without substance is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed as such.