(1.) The petitioner has challenged selection list issued vide No.CDPO/Dev/Estt/509-10 dtd. 23/2/2016 and consequent appointment order No.08-CDPO-DEV of 2016 dtd. 4/4/2016, issued in favour of respondent No.5. A further direction has been sought against the official respondents to consider appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in place of respondent No.5.
(2.) It is averred in the writ petition that in terms of advertisement notice bearing No.CDPO/DEV/Estt-2015/258-60 dtd. 27/1/2015, issued by official respondents, whereby applications were invited from eligible female matriculate candidates for engagement as Anganwadi Workers for different Anganwadi Centres including Kilam Wahab Batpora. The petitioner is stated to have responded to the said advertisement notice as she was fulfilling the eligibility criteria. It is further averred that after undergoing the selection process, the petitioner was awarded 54.37% marks which was highest amongst the eligible candidates. However, instead of the petitioner, respondent No.5 came to be selected though she had secured only 41.5% marks. The petitioner is stated to have filed her objections to the selection list but without considering those objections, the impugned appointment order dtd. 4/4/2016 came to be issued in favour of respondent No.5. When the petitioner, through an RTI application, enquired about the reasons for her rejection despite having secured higher merit, she was informed that she has been awarded 56.21 points whereas respondent No.5 has been awarded only 48.77 points.
(3.) The petitioner has challenged the selection and appointment of respondent No.5 on the grounds that despite having secured higher merit, she has been ignored by the official respondents without any logic. It has been submitted that the selection and appointment has not been made fairly and in consonance with the established procedure and, as such, the petitioner's right guaranteed under Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India stands violated.