- (1.) The petitioner was a candidate for Anganbari Karyakatri. It is stated that in pursuance of the Govt. Order dated 16.12.2003, applications were invited for employment on the said post, pursuant to which the petitioner submitted her application. It is stated that one Sandhya Devi was selected. The petitioner claims that her name was at serial no. 2. However, later on it was found that Sandhya Devi has secured her employment on the basis of the income certificate which was found fabricated and accordingly her employment was cancelled. The petitioner made an application for her employment. When no action was taken, she preferred Writ Petition No. 9156 of 2014, which was finally disposed of by this Court on 13.2.2014. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner's representation was rejected. It is stated in the impugned order that petitioner's claim has been rejected on the ground that State Govt. has put a ban on the appointments of Anganbari Karyakatri and after the order of this Court the authority concerned had sought guidance from the higher authority, who in its communication informed the authority concerned that there is Govt. Order putting ban on the said selection.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the authority concerned and now on the same ground, claim of the petitioner has been rejected. He has further submitted that the post is still lying vacant. No other submission has been made.
(3.) Learned standing counsel submits that employment of Anganbari Karyakatri is on contractual basis and the petitioner has no legal right in the matter.;