VBEENA DEVI Vs. STATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of instant writ petition, following reliefs are sought: "CERTIORARI

(2.) Aggrieved of selection of private respondent, petitioner approached this Court assailing her selection on the ground that the selection criteria providing no weightage to qualification higher than matriculation, was violative of constitutional guarantees, that petitioner was the only graduate amongst the candidates and being highest in qualification was entitled to be selected, that the private respondent was already employed as Anganwadi worker and she was transferred to fill up the only post of Anganwadi worker at Greater Kailash Center with malafide intention of defeating legitimate rights of petitioner. Eligibility of private respondent has also been assailed on the ground that she was not even a matriculate and her qualification as Rattan could not be equated with matriculation, thereby rendering her ineligible.

(3.) Respondents have contested the petition on the ground that Integrated Child Development Scheme is a Central Government Sponsored Scheme and the State Government prescribed norms for proper implementation of the same. That Anganwadi workers are not governed by any statute and are not employees of the State. Their engagement is regulated by Order No. 07 SW of 2010 dated 18.1.2010. Presently qualification for engagement of Anganwadi workers is prescribed as 10th and additional qualification has no relevance in engagement of Anganwadi workers. That the private respondent had also qualified the English of 10th standard as additional subject from Jammu University and thus she was eligible for consideration. That as per criteria, 85% marks were prescribed for academic qualification i.e. matriculation and 15 marks were prescribed for viva. That the petitioner secured 30.43 points apportionate to her marks of 179/500 obtained in 10th whereas the private respondent obtained 58.90 points proportionate to 485/700 obtained in 10th. In viva, the petitioner obtained 10.60 points whereas the private respondent secured 12.30 points. Thus, the petitioner had secured only 41.03 points whereas the private respondent had secured 71.19 points, entitling her to selection in view of higher merit. Petition has also been contested as being not maintainable, as the petitioner had sought alternate remedy of appeal which was yet to be decided.