LAWS(UTN)-2018-7-97

KIRAN NEGI Vs. MADHU BISHT & OTHERS

Decided On July 26, 2018
Kiran Negi Appellant
V/S
Madhu Bisht And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the sixth respondent in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The controversy surrounds around the appointment to the post of Anganbari Karyakatri. An advertisement (Annexure No. 2) was published in Amar Ujala edition dated 29.07.2010 for appointment to the post of Anganbari Karyakatri at Anganbari Kendra, Yashwantnagar, Ramnagar, District Nainital. Both, the appellant and the writ petitioner applied. Initially, it is the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner was selected, her name finds place at Serial No. 23. There was a complaint lodged by another person against selection of the petitioner. This led to the matter being looked into and there is no dispute that the matter was referred to the Appellate Committee. The Appellate Committee proceeded to consider the matter on that basis, as it turns out, that, both, the appellant and the writ petitioner do not belong to Yashwantnagar for which the advertisement was issued. Therefore, the inter se merit of the appellant and the writ petitioner was considered. Finding the appellant to be more meritorious than the writ petitioner, appellant came to be selected. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a writ petition as Writ Petition (S/S) No. 236/2011. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 19.04.2011 by directing that the writ petitioner may file a representation and the second respondent was to take a decision on it. It is on the said representation that the decision dated 15.06.2018, which is impugned in this case, has been passed. By the impugned order, the representation filed by the writ petitioner on 16.05.2011 has been rejected.

(3.) By the impugned judgment dated 15.06.2018, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. In doing so, the learned Single Judge found merit in the case of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner actually belonged to the particular village for which the advertisement was issued, namely, Yashwantnagar. It is seen primarily the reasoning was based on an answer given under the Right to Information Act given by Naib Tehsildar. The writ petitioner, apparently, posed a question as to whether Yashwantnagar and Yashwantnagar Nai Basti are the same or they are different villages. The writ petitioner is shown as residing in Yashwantnagar, Nai Basti. It was for establishing therefore that Yashwantnagar, Nai Basti is the same as Yashwantnagar that the writ petitioner posed the query. The answer to the same, which is produced in the Writ Petition, is that they both are the same. If this is true, then the foundation for the decision against the writ petitioner may not last.