SUMGANGLA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ Petitioners/Appellants filed the writ petition with the following prayer: That the act of the Respondents in not considering the applicants for appointment against the posts of Supervisors on unreasonable grounds and in making the appointments of other Anganwari Workers/Bal Sevikas against the posts of Supervisors despite the pendency of O.A. No. 127/2003, titled as Anita Randhawa and Ors. V/s. the State of H.P. and Ors. may kindly be declared illegal arbitrary, contrary, unjust invalid, viodabinitio, unconstitutional and unsustainable in the eyes of law and all the appointments made by the Respondents against the posts of Supervisors from amongst the Anganwari workers and Bal Sevikas may kindly be quashed in the interest of justice.

(2.) THE issue pertains to the appointment of Anganwari Supervisors in Kangra District. In O.A. (D) No. 127 of 2003, the prayer reads as follows: That the impugned Notification 28102002 vide Notification 14/73WelEast may kindly be quashed and set aside because the applicants have completed requisite qualification and experience for the requisite posts and the Respondents have adopt the pick and choose method for the above said posts or the roll numbers of the applicants be issued before the screening test date i.e. 19012003.

(3.) IT is seen from the interim order dated 10th January, 2003 that the erstwhile H.P. Administrate Tribunal had permitted to interview the Petitioners, provisionally, in accordance with the rules. O.A. No. 2215 of 2005 was filed only on 1.9.2005, which was later on renumbered as CWP (T) No. 12569 of 2008. There appears to be an illadvised move on the part of the Petitioners for withdrawal of O.A. (D) No. 127 of 2003. On close scrutiny of the prayers, whether the Petitioners had been pursuing independent reliefs, has also to be looked into. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition mainly on two grounds, one on account of unconditional withdrawal of O.A. (D) No. 127 of 2003 and the other, nonimpleading of the affected parties. As already observed above, if the prayers are closely scrutinized and the grounds taken by the Petitioners are also seen, though there is overlapping, it can be seen that there is a basic and distinct contention regarding qualification based on the last date of the submission of the application. No doubt, all the affected parties are not impleaded, but the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that there are still vacancies available in Kangra District and therefore, even without claiming any seniority or without affecting the interests of those, already appointed, their case can be independently considered. It is also submitted that some of the Petitioners may not be in a position to participate in a fresh selection, being over aged.