URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court assailing the appointment of respondent No.11 as Anganwari Worker in Village Mangra, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, on the ground that she had submitted her application beyond the cut -off date fixed for submission of the same.

(2.) PETITIONER is an handicapped lady, belongs to general category and having Haryana Resident Certificate. The post of Anganwari Worker of general category was advertised on 01.10.2010 by the beat of drum in Village Mangra, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. In pursuance to the said munadi, the petitioner had applied and her candidature was considered for the appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. Respondent No.11 who did not apply in pursuance to this advertisement/munadi has been appointed and, therefore, the selection and appointment of respondent No.11 is not in accordance with the advertisement.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that only those application could be considered for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker which were received in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.10.2010 and the earlier applications could not be considered. He, therefore, contends that the earlier applications which were submitted having been considered violates the requirement of the advertisement and, therefore, consideration of those candidates whose applications were received prior to the date of fresh advertisement is not sustainable. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the application of respondent No.11 was received between the period of 11.09.2010 to 01.10.2010 which could not be taken into consideration. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the stand taken by the respondents in their written statement which clearly depicts that the earlier munadi was conducted in the village and the interview was postponed which was rescheduled and it is between the said period that a fresh munadi was conducted and fresh applications were called upon. The candidates who had earlier applied in pursuance to the earlier munadi were not required to submit the applications again and, therefore, the action of the respondents in any manner cannot be said to be not in consonance with the requirement of the advertisement. In any case, the same is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as every candidate who had in pursuance to the advertisement applied for the post is entitled to participate in the selection process.