SUNIL DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Learned State counsel points out that the petitioner has qualified her 10th standard from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad which is not a recognized body to grant educational certificates. Neither are the qualifications earned from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, recognized by the State of Haryana for purposes of public employment. Though the present case does not involve public employment inasmuch as the post under consideration is of an anganwari worker which is an engagement offered under a Central Government Scheme in implementation of a scheme in Haryana is not a public/civil post yet the principles attaching to educational qualifications earned from recognized institutions in appointments or engagements would apply. If the 10th class certificate obtained from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad is ruled out of consideration then the petitioner is left with only middle pass certificate. The private respondent, on the other hand, has duly qualified the matriculation examination 10th standard from a recognized institution i.e. Board of School Education, Haryana. Therefore, the argument that the petitioner is more qualified than the private respondent and therefore deserves appointment for that reason is besides the point and cuts no ice.

(2.) IN so far as the comparative inter se merit of the petitioner and private respondent is concerned that is a matter of subjective satisfaction of the selection committee, the opinion of which when arrived at based on objective criteria cannot be interdicted through judicial process particularly when no mala fides or arbitrariness is alleged in the selection process, or the composition of the selecting committee/authority. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with respect to possessing higher qualifications thus stands negated. The preferential claim of a widow under clause 9 of the scheme would also not help the petitioner in this case being a widow as sufficient to oust the private respondent who has been selected on merit or to quash her appointment by certiorari.

(3.) IN view of the above, it is not necessary to go into the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable in a case of anganwari worker. Nevertheless, that issue also has been settled by the judgment of this Court rendered in LPA No. 258 of 2012; Nisha Rani and others v. ADC, Sirsa and others, as well as by the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court delivered in Smt. Sheela Devi and another v. State of U.P. and others, : 2011(1) A.W.C. 906. It is the opinion of both the High Courts that a writ is maintainable for redressing service law oriented grievances of anganwari workers. In both the precedents the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi, : (2007) 11 S.C.C. 681 have been explained that anganwari workers do not hold civil posts under the State or the Central Government, the latter being the sponsoring and funding agency of the scheme, but that does not necessarily mean that proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution are not available to such workers in appropriate cases where rights are created or taken away by State functionaries whose actions and in -actions would remain open to judicial review. No ground for interference is made out in the selection and appointment of the private respondent.