ANEETA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following reliefs, among others:

(2.) Brief facts, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the fifth respondent issued an advertisement dated 18.01.2018, whereby various posts of Aanganbari Karyakarti, Sahayika and Mini Karyakarti in different Aanganbari Centers of District Uttarkashi were advertised. In the said advertisement for Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I, Dunga, one post of Sahayika was also advertised to be filled by general category candidate. The said post of Sahayika got vacant due to death of one Surma Begam in December 2016 and, as such, the same was advertised through the aforesaid advertisement dated 18.01.2018 for filling up the posts of Aanganbari Sahayika. The last date for submitting the application, as per the said advertisement, was 16.02.2018. Petitioner, being permanent resident of Village Paini Bhawan, Patti Dhanari, Tehsil Dunda, District Uttarkashi and having all requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Aanganbari Sahayika, applied for the said post. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner belongs to a poor family and her family is having monthly income of Rs.1300/-. After submission of application forms, the respondents compared the eligibility of the candidates and issued a tentative selection list on 11.04.2018. Petitioner was declared selected in said tentative selection list.

(3.) It is further averred that some persons, who harbour personal grudge against the family of petitioner got annoyed due to her selection and moved frivolous complaints / objections against her selection and due to which, the respondents did not give joining to the petitioners. It is also averred that in Village Paini Bhawan, there are two Aanganbari Centers namely, Paini Bhawan-I and Paini Bhawan-II. The post of Sahayika was advertised for Paini Bhawan-I, the place where the petitioner is residing. The said persons, who made the complaint against the petitioner alleged that Mamta Devi (who is also looking after the work of Sahayika in Paini Bhawan-I) is working as Sahayika in Paini Bhawan-II and that the post of Sahayika is vacant in Paini Bhawan-II. The petitioner moved a representation dated 15.02.2019 before the seventh respondent for conducting an inquiry into the matter. Petitioner also moved a representation dated 18.02.2019 before the third respondent narrating the entire facts and circumstances and requested to give her joining on the post of Sahayika in Aanganbari Center, Paini Bhawan-I, for which she was selected. An inquiry was conducted by the respondents on the above representations of the petitioner. After completion of inquiry, the seventh respondent submitted inquiry report dated 25.02.2019 before the fourth respondent categorically stating that the selection of petitioner for the post of Sahayika in Paini Bhawan-I is found genuine and proper. It is alleged in the writ petition that no action was taken by respondents even after the aforesaid inquiry report and the petitioner was not given appointment even after her due selection.