SHARMILA Vs. VEENA DEVI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by defendant No. 5 in the suit against concurrent findings, judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below; whereby the appointment of the appellant as Anganwari worker has been set aside.

(2.) For the purpose of the present appeal, the parties would be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant as mentioned in the plaint.

(3.) The facts of the case, as mentioned in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court; are that the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 herein filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and mandatory injunction challenging the appointment of the present appellant on the post of Anganwadi worker in village Zahidpur, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that she was the permanent resident of village Zahidpur, Tehsil Kosli, District Rewari. Applications for appointment as Anganwadi worker in District Rewari were invited by defendants No. 2 and 3 (official respondents). The plaintiff who is the daughter-in-law of village Zahidpur had applied for the post of Anganwadi worker. Interview was conducted for the post on 06.09.2010. However, she was not selected. Instead, defendant No. 5(present appellant) was selected. Hence the suit was filed challenging her appointment and further for directing the official respondents to appoint the plaintiff in her place. In the plaint, it was pleaded that defendant No. 5 was not resident of village Zahidpur. Rather; she was resident of village Jatola, Tehsil Farukh Nagar, District Gurgaon. It was further pleaded that one of the conditions of eligibility in the advertisement issued by the official defendants was that the applicant should be female, the applicant should be resident of the village and she should be actually residing in the village. The persons of nearby village were to be eligible only in case if there was no person available in the village. It was pleaded that respondent No. 5 was married in village Jatola, Tehsil Farukh Nagar, District Gurgaon. However, by using old certificates of residence and by influencing official defendants; the defendant No. 5, manipulated to get the appointment on the post. Disputing the appointment of defendant No. 5 the plaintiff had made a representation on 04.10.2010. However, still the official defendants proceeded further and appointed defendant No. 5. It needs further clarification here that when the suit was filed, defendant No. 5 had not been actually appointed. However, she was appointed during the pendency of the suit.