BEENA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the writ petition had sought for the following relief:-

(2.) The precise case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the petitioner contends, that she has been working with the respondents as an Aganbadi Karyakarti, ever since her initial date of appointment i.e. on 13/6/1991. Having satisfactory rendered the services and since she was having the requisite qualification, she had responded to the advertisement, which was issued by the respondents on 5/7/2012, as published on 6/7/2012 in the daily newspaper; inviting the applications for undertaking the exercise of promotion to the post of Mukhya Sevika (Supervisor), in accordance with the eligibility criteria, educational qualification and as well as the resolution of the selecting body to be extended. Consequent to it a selection body was constituted on 28/12/2016, and on culmination of the selection process, the petitioner's case is that the marks which she had obtained and as shown in the select list, which was thus published on 6/7/2012, her name was appearing at Serial No. 4 and the total marks, which she has obtained is shown to be 26. But still despite of the fact, that having placed at Serial No. 4 of the select list she was not provided with the appointment on the post of Supervisor, and hence she has contended, that her issue stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2680 of 2017, "Smt Satyawati vs. State of Uttarkhand and others, which was decided by this Court vide its judgment dtd. 18/9/2017. This judgment was rendered in relation to the candidate whose name appears at Serial No.7 in the same select list dtd. 6/7/2012.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the grounds taken by respondent no.1 in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has been rendered non suited on the ground, that since she has secured equivalent marks as compared to that one of the candidates i.e. Tulsi Devi, and since Tulsi Devi being elder to the petitioner in age as per her recorded date of birth, she would be rather entitled to be considered for promotion in accordance with Rule