SUDHA SONI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROJECT Officer, Integrated Development Project, Kawardha, vide order dated 24/05/2006 selected Respondent No. 7 -Smt. Dropati Dhruv on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta of Ward No. 8, Kawardha, instead of selecting the Petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. State Government vide Letter No. F1(A)/99/95/50-l dated 06/01/2000 prescribed educational qualifications and other recruitments for appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta. The guidelines also prescribe that in case all the candidates possess same qualification and other requirements, preference should be given to widow/deserted woman/member of SC/ST community. Applications from suitable candidates for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta were invited by Respondent No. 4. Petitioner, Respondent No. 7 and others submitted their applications along with educational testimonials and other documents. Municipal Council, Kawardha, after receiving applications and documents prepared a comparative chart and submitted the same to the department. On 24/05/2006 for selection of Anganwadi Karyakarta and Anganwadi Sahayika a meeting was held and the committee selected Respondent No. 7 for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakarta for Ward No. 8, Kawardha.

(2.) THE selection was challenged on the ground of irregularity by one of the councilors namely Pawan Kumar Jaiswal. Project Officer, Integrated Development Project, Kawardha enquired the charge and after completion of enquiry, submitted his report wherein the selection of Respondent No. 7 was found in accordance with guidelines. Petitioner a married woman having qualification upto 12th standard living below the poverty line belonging to Soni caste, who applied for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta against the post for Ward No. 8, was not selected and instead Respondent No. 7 has been selected, therefore, she, challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 7, inter alia, alleging that Respondent No. 7 does not possess the requisite requirement as she being not a member of family living below the poverty line was not eligible for appointment, but ignoring the requisite condition Respondent No. 7 has been appointed to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner contended that for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta one who lives below the poverty line was entitled for preference. Petitioner is a woman who is living below the poverty line whereas Respondent No. 7 does not live below the poverty line; therefore, in place of Petitioner, appointment of Respondent No. 7 is illegal. On the contrary, Respondents contended that Respondent No. 7 along with her application gave educational testimonials and all other documents including certificate in proof of her living, below the poverty line and in respect of qualification, candidature and requirement of below the poverty line both Smt. Sudha Soni and Smt. Dropati Dhruv were found equal, thereofore, the deciding factor remained the preferential criteria which was available to member of Schedule Tribe community Smt. Dropati Dhruv (Respondent No. 7). Thus, Respondent No. 7 was selected and her selection was completely in accordance with law. Annexure-R/3 submitted by Respondents No. 1 to 5 along with their return clearly indicates that Petitioner and Respondent No. 7 both were married women having educated up to 12th standard and were living below the poverty line. According to guidelines dated 6-1-2000 preference was to be given to a woman belonging to SC/ST community, therefore, Dropati Dhruv being a member of Scheduled Tribe Community was eligible for selection to the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta. Annexure-R/4 annexed along with return of Respondents No. 1 to 5 clearly establishes that Respondent No. 7 is a member living below the poverty line. Annexure-R/5, filed along with return of Respondents No. 1 to 5, which is caste certificate, establishes that Respondent No. 7 belongs to a member of Scheduled Tribe community.