NAHID SULTANA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Kumari Amrita, learned Government Pleader No.3 for the State.

(2.) A rather unfortunate situation exist in the present case where an eligible candidate for consideration to the post of Anganwari Sevika of Centre Code No.249 at Devi Asthan, Hajipur, Nagar Panchayat, Rafiganj in the district of Aurangabad has lost her candidature by reason of delay by the respondents in completing the selection process for the post.

(3.) The delay by the respondents stands supported by the fact that the post was first advertised in the year 2011 and when the petitioner applied on 15.7.2011 as manifest from Annexure-1. The process was abandoned midway. The second advertisement for the same appointment came in the year 2013 bearing Advertisement No.01/2013 and against which again the petitioner applied vide Annexure-2 on 17.9.201 The date of Aam Sabha was fixed on 25.2015 for holding selection as manifest from Annexure- The Aam Sabha however did not take place and again the selection process was abandoned. The reasons for abandonment of the two selection processes so initiated are unknown and even when the maximum age for a candidate applying for appointment as Anganwari Sevika was enhanced from 33 years to 40 years, by the delayed action of the respondents, the petitioner has crossed the prescribed age on 26.6.2014 as manifest from the certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board present at Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit filed in the present proceeding which certifies her date of birth as 26.6.1974. The petitioner came to know about the abandonment when no action was taken to fix the date of Aam Sabha in the selection process initiated vide Advertisement No.01/2013 when she got knowledge about the Advertisement No.02/2016 impugned at Annexure-5 issued on 24.12.2016 under the signature of the District Magistrate, Aurangabad which also includes the centre in question at serial no.69. Though the maximum age prescribed is 40 years in terms of the stipulation present in the advertisement but the petitioner has crossed the maximum age. The grievance of the petitioner is that for the reasons entirely attributable to the respondents that she is deprived of consideration.