KAUSHLIYA DEVI Vs. ADJ-4, KOTA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT petition has been filed against order dt.24/09/2011 passed by Addl. District Judge No. 4, Kota whereby appeal preferred by Defendant against temporary injunction was allowed and order dt.16/08/2007 of temporary injunction granted by learned trial Judge U/O.39 Rules 1 & 2, Code of Civil Procedure, was set aside.

(2.) FROM the material on record, it appears that process of selection was initiated for the post of Aaganwadi Karyakarta in which Plaintiff (petitioner) alongwith incumbent (Sugnabai) had had participated. It is relevant to record that in terms of Circular issued by Respondent -State Government, Secondary was minimum qualification but on account of non -availability of incumbent with minimum qualification of Secondary, incumbent having lower qualification than minimum qualification can also be considered for selection but in the process of selection held on 18/02/2006, incumbent Sugana Bai was holding minimum qualification of secondary but still for the reasons best known to the department, Petitioner holding qualification of middle class passed got selected on the post of Aaganwari Karya Karta and pursuant to her selection, she joined on 29/09/2006. But, she was apprehending that process has been initiated to cancel her appointment at this stage, she approached the trial Court by filing suit for permanent injunction alongwith application for temporary injunction.

(3.) MAIN thrust of Counsel for Petitioner is that apart from prima facie case, which the Plaintiff was able to make out, balance of convenience & irreparable loss both being salient ingredients to be looked into while considering matter for grant of temporary injunction, were completely brushed aside by Court of appeal and when she was discharging duties of the post of Aaganwari Karyakarta, balance of convenience & irreparable loss were in her favour which have not been properly appreciated by Court of appeal while passing order impugned dt.24/09/2011.