SONAL AGRAWAL Vs. STATE & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 (Annexure-2), passed by the respondent No.2 and further seeking direction against the respondents to send the petitioner for training and issue appointment letter in her favour for the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta' with all consequential benefits.

(2.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta for the petitioner that the petitioner was duly selected for the post of Aanganwadi Worker as per the order dated 30.06.2014 at Annexure/1 and the same is sought to be cancelled as per the impugned order dated 08.09.2014 at Annexure/2 by the respondent No.2 arbitrarily, illegally and on extraneous considerations. It is also submitted that since the petitioner was not sent for training alongwith the other selected candidates, she had made complaints to the respondent Nos.2 and the Distt. Collector, and therefore the impugned order was passed by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 cancelling the selection on the ground that the other candidates having higher qualifications than the petitioner were not considered while preparing list at Annexure/1, so far as the ward No.22 was concerned. According to Mr. Gupta, the complaints received by the respondent No.2 from the other candidates had no substance as the said candidates did not belong to Ward No.22, as transpiring from the documents produced by the petitioner, whereas the petitioner belonged to ward No.22 and was duly qualified for the post of 'Aanganwadi Karyakarta'. Mr. Gupta has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Shankarsan Dash V. Union of India, 1991 AIR(SC) 1612, to submit that though the State is under no obligation to fill up all the vacancies, the State has no license of acting in arbitrary manner and that the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates as reflected at the recruitment test. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing by the respondent No.2 while passing the impugned order, and therefore the same deserves to be set-aside.

(3.) However, the learned Govt. Counsel Mr. B.K. Sharma for the respondents relying upon the reply filed by the respondents has raised preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petition involved disputed questions of facts. He further submitted that the petitioner was included in the list dated 30.06.2014 at Annexure/1 as the parshad of ward No.22 had given out to the committee that the other candidates were not the residents of ward No.22 but subsequently it was found to be not correct position. According to him, the selection of the petitioner was cancelled as the respondent No.2 had received many complaints to the effect that other more qualified candidates were not considered by the selection committee, though available from ward No.22, and the respondent No.3 had found after calling for the fact finding report that the selection of the petitioner was wrongly made by the selection committee. He also submitted that the Aanganbari Workers are being appointed on the honorarium basis, and the order at Annexure/1 was subject to the candidates obtaining the requisite grade after the completion of the training as stated in the orders at Annexure/1 & Annexure/3.