MUNNI PATHAK Vs. DIRECTOR MAHILA AND BALVIKAS VIBHAG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Advertisement, dated January 17, 1995 for appointment of Mukhya Sevika is sought to be quashed by means of the present petition.

(2.) Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the notification is vitiated stemming from the reason that all the posts were sought to be filled by direct recruitment whereas according to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Child Development and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service. Rules, 1992, 25% of the vacancies ought to have been filled by promotion from amongst qualified and eligible Anganwadi workers. The submission made by the learned counsel is bereft of merits. As a matter of fact, according to the rules notified by Notification, dated November 16, 1992, the post of Mukhya Sevika was envisaged to be filled by direct recruitment through departmental selection committee attended with interview. The rules were amended by means of the Notification No. 457/60-2-95-58 Adhi-90, dated December 26, 1996 by which Rule 4 of 1992 rules was substituted by the following rule :

(3.) It would thus transpire that the appointment to the post of Mukhya Sevika was never to be made by promotion. Initially, cent percent posts were to be filled by selection on the basis of interview. Subsequently, in 1996, 75% posts were required to be filled by Direct recruitment through Selection Committee from amongst female candidates on the basis of interview from amongst High School or equivalent examination and ultimately in 1998, 50% posts were stipulated to be filled by direct recruitment from amongst High School or equivalent examination pass Anganwadi workers, who had completed 10 years of continuous service as such and have not attained the age of more than 45 years on the first day of the year of recruitment. The advertisement in question dates back to the year 1995 and at that time all the posts of Mukhya Sevika were required to be filled by direct recruitment through departmental Selection Committee on the basis of interview according to Rule 4 as it stood prior to substitution by December 26, 1996 notification, the argument advanced by the learned counsel is born of misconception. There is no infirmity permeating the impugned advertisement.