V.K.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) UNDER the integrated Child Development Scheme for recruitment of Supervisors (Mukhya Sewika), applications were invited on 25.12.1994. Petitioner applied for consideration of her candidature for the post of Supervisor (Mukhya Sewika), Petitioner, along with other applicants, appended each and every requisite document qua her educational qualification. She faced Selection Committee and thereafter her name was finalized for being appointed as Supervisor (Mukhya Sewika), and appointment letter was issued on 25.5.1995. Petitioner joined her services on 26.6.1995. Thereafter, petitioner started functioning and discharging duties. She was sent for training, which she completed with all success. Additional increment was also accorded to the petitioner. Complaint was made qua appointment of petitioner in January 2004. On the said complaint being made, notice was issued. Said notice was followed by another notice dated 14.9.2004. Again show cause notice was issued on 6.1.2005, to which reply was submitted on 22.1.2005. Thereafter appointment of petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that petitioner did not full requisite minimum eligibility criteria for the post in question, as such her appointment was illegal.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended, with vehemence, that in the present case petitioner had applied pursuant to advertisement and whatever was her educational qualification, the same was duly disclosed, and thereafter, on the basis of merit, she was selected and after having served for more than 5 years, selection and appointment of petitioner ought not to have been cancelled after a gap of such long period when wider experience has been gained by the petitioner, as such writ petition is liable to be allowed. From the side of respondents, it has been contended that petitioner did not fulfill requisite minimum eligibility criteria, as the petitioner did not possess Social Science, Social Work, Home Science or General Nutrition and Development as one of the subjects at graduate level, as such there is no infirmity in the impugned order.
(3.) AFTER respective arguments have been advanced, the factual position which emerges is to the effect that pursuant to advertisement dated 25.12.1994, petitioner along with other candidates applied for appointment to the post of Supervisor (Mukhya Sewika). The minimum qualification, which was required to be fulfilled was graduate degree with Social Science or Work or Home Science of Nutrition and Child Development as one of the subjects or any other course duly recognized by the State Government. Petitioner is graduate and the subjects which the petitioner had opted are Hindi Literary, Hindi Language, Economics and Education. Thus, the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite minimum eligibility criteria provided for in the advertisement. The question is that when petitioner did not fulfill the requisite minimum eligibility criteria, why her candidature was not rejected and why she was permitted to undertake selection process and face Selection Committee? Petitioner at no point of time had made any misrepresentation qua her educational qualification, rather each and every details was duly furnished by her. At no point of time petitioner's candidature was withheld, rather she was selected on merit, and appointment was offered to her, pursuant to which she joined and started performing and discharging duties. After nine years action has been sought to be taken against petitioner. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Paid Raghav Natha, 1969 (2) SCC 187; Mansa Ram v. S.P. Pathak, 1984(1) SCC 125, State of Orissa v. Brundaban Sharma, 1995 (Supp.) 3 SCC 249, has taken the view that exercise of power is always subject to inherent limitation of power being exercised within reasonable period and as to what would be reasonable period would opened upon different fact situation peculiar to each case. This is well settled in law that when any action has to be taken against any incumbent, then the same should be taken within reasonable time. However, this principle is not extendable to cases where incumbent has played fraud or misrepresentation on his/her part. Here, in the present case, petitioner was appointed nine years back and now action has been sought to be taken on the ground of ineligibility. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, as there was no fraud or misrepresentation on the part of petitioner in disclosing full details, and petitioner having been permitted to function for about nine years, the cancellation of her appointment cannot be termed to be valid action, within reasonable period of time.;