REKHA Vs. STATE OF H P AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 19.9.2014, the petitioner and respondent No.3 participated in the selection process held by respondents No.1 and 2 for making selection of a suitable candidate to man the post of Aganwadi Worker at Aganwadi Center, Bayal. In the apposite interview, the petitioner was declared successful. She as portrayed in paragraph No.10 of the petition was on 20.09.2014 purveyed by the respondent concerned an appointment letter for manning the post of Aganwadi Worker at Aganwadi Center, Bayal. In pursuance thereto, she joined at Aganwadi Center, Bayal on 20.9.2014. The apposite guidelines governing the selection/appointment to the post of Aganwadi Worker besides containing the period of limitation within which an aggrieved candidate can contest the selection made by the interviewing committee concerned of an Aganwadi Worker at the center concerned envisages a period of 15 days within which the aggrieved candidate can institute an appeal before the competent statutory authority for assailing the selection made by the interviewing committee concerned. The prescription of a period of 15 days in the apposite guide lines within which the aggrieved candidate can assail the selection of the selected candidate by instituting an appeal before the competent statutory authority is both rigid besides inflexible. It does not purvey any power to the statutory competent authority to on an appeal standing preferred before it beyond 15 days at the instance of an aggrieved candidate assailing the selection made by the Interviewing Committee concerned to either entertain it or render a decision thereupon nor any power is vested in the statutory competent authority concerned to condone the delay as occurs in the institution of an apposite appeal before it by the aggrieved candidate. Consequently, with the apposite appeal preferred by the aggrieved respondent No.3 before the competent statutory authority standing instituted thereat beyond a period of 15 days divested the competent statutory authority to entertain it or decide it on merits. In its proceeding to entertain it and decide it on merit renders its decision to be vitiated on the score of its standing jurisdictionally barred to pronounce a rendition upon it.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 though contends of hers applying for copies of the result sheet on 23.9.2014 which stood supplied by the respondent concerned only on 7.10.2014. However, she since then upto 26.12.2014 hence beyond the statutorily prescribed period of 15 days within which an appeal was mandatorily enjoined to be preferred by her yet she for no abundant or sufficient cause even within 15 days from 7.10.2014 omitted to institute an appeal therefrom before the competent statutory authority. Even if assuming that the time spent by respondent No.3 in obtaining copies of marks list/result sheet wherein the petitioner herein stood declared successful by the interviewing committee concerned, yet the petitioner immediately on receiving a copy of the score sheet with a depiction therein of the petitioner standing declared as successful omitted to promptly file thereafter an appeal before the competent statutory authority. However, the aggrieved respondent No.3 when omitted to do so rather for no good reason procrastinated its institution before the statutory competent authority uptill 26.12.2014, in sequel the delay in the institution of an appeal by her before the competent statutory authority wherein she assailed the selection as made by the Interviewing Committee concerned of the petitioner as an Aganwadi Worker at Aganwadi Center, Bayal was grossly procrastinated. In sequel, the entertainment of the appeal by the competent statutory authority beyond the period of limitation renders any adjudication thereon to be jurisdictionally void. Consequently, there is merit in the instant petition and it is allowed. In sequel, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. All pending applications also stand disposed of.