ELEJABETH TOPNO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been preferred because of inaction on the part of the respondents in not issuing appointment letter for the post of Lady Supervisor on the ground that when the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sewika, she was below the age of 18 years.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Anganwari Sewika. She worked several years on the said post and thereafter, the new Advertisement was published by the respondents for altogether another post of Lady Supervisor. Applications were invited on 13 November, 2007, for the Post of Lady Supervisor. The petitioner applied for the said post and the petitioner was duly qualified and eligible for the appointment of Lady Supervisor. The Advertisement, is at Annexure -4 to the memo of the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner was successful candidate in all the tests taken by the respondents. The petitioner was also selected as a Lady Supervisor. There were 22 selected candidates and the respondents have given appointment to only twenty candidates, leaving aside the petitioner and one another person, who has also instituted W.P.(S) 3226 of 2008. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the only reason assigned for not giving appointment letter to the petitioner is that when the petitioner was appointed on some other post i.e. Anganwari Sewika she was below the age of 18 years. In fact, looking to the Advertisement, there was no such condition, at all, attached or there was no such eligibility or criteria attached for the selection of Lady Supervisor. The only requirement for the applicant to be selected for the post of Lady Supervisor is that the applicant should be Anganwari Sewika, and that candidate should have ten years' working experience as Anganwari Sewika, if a candidate is Graduate in any faculty, or 15 Years' experience as Anganwari Sewika, if a candidate is Matriculate. The petitioner is falling within the second category. The petitioner was working as Anganwari Sewika from 6th February, 1992, and she is Matriculate and, therefore, as on date, application for the post of Lady Supervisor, the petitioner was duly eligible and qualified as she was appointed as Anganwari Sewika in the Year, 1992, and having experience of 15 years with Matriculation and, therefore, the reason assigned by the respondents that though she is, otherwise, fully qualified and eligible and selected also for the post of Lady Supervisor, the petitioner cannot be appointed as Lady Supervisor because when the petitioner appointed as Anganwari Sewika, she was less than 18 years of age. This ground cannot be added as a criteria after the whole selection process is over. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002(1) J.C.R. Page No. 301, especially, upon Paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 thereof.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents -State, who has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sewika and her age was less than 18 years and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be appointed as Lady Supervisor though she is selected by the respondent -authorities as Lady Supervisor by the appropriate committee, appointed by the respondents, and, therefore, she has not been given appointment.