M H GEETHA Vs. MAJULAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the 5th respondent in Writ Petition No. 13539/2005 which was allowed by the learned single Judge. The 1st respondent is the petitioner in the writ petition.

(2.) AS per Annexure-E-Notification dated 16-2-2004, the 5th respondent-Child Development Officer. Holalkere invited applications for the vacant post of Anganawadi workers. As per the notification, the candidate must be a woman belonging to the same village and should be within the age limit of 18 to 44 years. The educational qualification mentioned in the notification is SSLC pass and above. There were five applicants for the post of Anganawadi workers in Hiriyur village. The appellant and the 1st respondent were among the five applicants. Even though the appellant had not passed SSLC, she was selected by the Selection Committee on the ground that she was a widow. On the basis of such selection, she was appointed as anganawadi worker as per Annexure-G-Order dated 27-1 -2005. The 1 st respondent who possessed the required qualification and who was overlooked for appointment filed Writ petition No. 13539/2005 praying to quash annexure-G-Order and also to direct the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner for the post of Anganawadi worker. The respondents contested the case by filing statement of objections. After considering the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents, the writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge quashing Annexure-G-order and directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as an anganawadi worker. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, the 5th respondent in the writ petition has filed this writ appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record, we do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order quashing Annexure-G-order. It is not disputed that as per Annexure-E-notification. the qualification required is SSLC pass and above. It is also not disputed that the appellant had failed in SSLC and therefore, she was not eligible to apply for the post in terms of the conditions mentioned in Anexure-E-notification. Annexure-E-notification had not given any discretion to the Selection Committee to relax the educational qualification on any ground. Hence the action of the Selection committee in selecting an ineligible applicant on the ground that she is a widow was wrong, illegal and arbitrary. The Selection Committee or the appellant has no case that any suitable candidate was not available. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned single Judge was right and justified in quashing annexure-G-order appointing the 5th respondent in the writ petition (appellant herein)as the Anganawadi worker pursuant to Annexure-E-notification.