- (1.) Smt. Vinda Devi is before this Court questioning the validity of impugned order dated 20.10.2011 passed by District Magistrate, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi and further prayed for direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 4 to select/appoint the petitioner on the promotional post Anganwadi Karyakarty in pursuance to the Government Orders dated 06.12.2006 and 10.05.2007 at Anganwadi Center in the Gram Panchayat Lohrakhash (Gopygang), Block Ghayanpur, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has been duly appointed vide order dated 24.09.2001 on the post of Anganwadi Assistant in Village Lohrakshash, Block Ghyanpur, District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi by the respondent No. 4. Thereafter the petitioner joined the said post and is discharging her duty continuously without any break and without any complaint. The petitioner has sought permission from the respondent No. 4 to appear in high school examination as a private candidate and in this regard she submitted an application before the respondent No. 4 on 10.07.2003. Thereafter, petitioner has also submitted application for sanction of leave before respondent No. 5 on 05.03.2004 for scheduled high school examination i.e. 11.03.2004, 13.03.2004, 15.03.2004, 17.03.2004, 19.03.2004, 22.03.2004, 24.03.2004, 27.03.2004, 31.03.2004 and 01.04.2004. In pursuance, thereof, the respondent No. 5 on 05.03.2004 had sanctioned the said leave and permitted to appear in the high school examination. After passing the high school examination the petitioner has intimated the same to the respondent No. 4 by means of application dated 15.07.2004. The petitioner again sought permission from the respondent No. 4 to appear in the intermediate examination as a private candidate and as such in this regard she has submitted an application before the respondent No. 4 on 12.07.2006. She further moved another application on 07.03.2007 for sanction of leave for the scheduled intermediate examination w.e.f. 12.03.2007, 13.03.2007, 14.03.2007, 20.03.2007, 22.03.2007, 23.03.2007, 28.03.2007, 29.03.2007, 30.03.2007, 05.04.2007 and 10.04.2007. Thereafter the respondent No. 4 sanctioned the said leave and permitted to appear in the intermediate examination vide order dated 12.07.2006. After passing out the intermediate examination petitioner has also intimated the same to the respondent No. 4 by means application dated 10.08.2007.
(3.) The child Development Programme Officer, Ghyanpur District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi issued a notification for 15 post for the selection of Anganwadi worker which was published on 09.07.2010. Being eligible, the petitioner submitted her application form under quota of 25% according to the Government Order dated 06.12.2006 before the respondent No. 4 on 23.07.2010 and in pursuant thereof the authority concerned has provided a receipt of the same to the petitioner on 23.07.2010. The petitioner has annexed certificate of high school, intermediate, caste certificate of backward class, domicile certificate and appointment letter of the post of Anganwadi Assistant. As per the Government Orders dated 06.12.2006 and 10.05.2007, 25% of the vacancy have to be filled up amongst the incumbents who are working on the post of Anganwadi Assistant having 2 years satisfactory work. The petitioner has completed two years of satisfactory service and possess educational qualification of intermediate and as such she is entitled to be considered for the appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarty from the post of Anganwadi Assistant. After last date of submission of the application form, the appointing authority constituted a selection committee to make selection of the Anganwadi workers in Pariyojana Ghyanpur District Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi. The selection committee published the selection list in which name of the respondent No. 5 finds place in the list but the name of the petitioner does not finds place in the said list. However, as per the Government Orders, it is provided that 25% posts should be reserved for the selection of Anganwadi worker from the total numbers of vacancies and in the advertisement 15 posts has been advertised and in which 4 posts occurred to be reserved under 25% quota but the respondent No. 4 only provided 2 posts out of total 4 posts. As per the Government Order dated 06.12.2006 and 10.05.2007 issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh for the promotion on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarty providing 25% quota for the promotion on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarty from Anganwadi Assistant within a circle of 5 KM from the center. The aforesaid Government Order further provides essential qualification i.e. high school and two years satisfactory work on the post of Anganwadi Assisant for the promotion to the post of Angawadi Karyakarty. The respondent No. 4 created only two posts out of the total vacancies for the promotion on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarty from the Anganwadi Assistant. In pursuance of Government Order dated 06.12.2006 and 10.05.2007 Smt. Saroja Devi and Smt Reet Devi were duly selected and promoted by the respondent No. 4 on 04.02.2011 and 04.03.2011 in village Jagapur and Bhindipura respectively but the petitioner's claim for promotion has not been considered under the reserved quota. Aggrieved with the non consideration of her candidature for promotion on the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti, she has earlier filed Writ A No. 48255 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 24.08.2011 had disposed of the said writ petition with following observations:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner is working as an Anganbari Sahayika. The contention of the petitioner is that 15 posts of Anganbari Karyakarti are vacant and in view of the Government Order dated 6.12.2006 and 10.5.2007, there is a reservation quota of 25% for the Anganbari Sahayka for the appointment on the post of Anganbari Karyakarti. The petitioner has claimed her promotion under the reserved quota, but out of reserved quota only two posts have been filled up and the petitioner's claim for promotion has not been considered. Learned Standing Counsel states that the petitioner's grievance can more appropriately be considered by the District Magistrate, Ravi Das Nagar, respondent no.2. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case if the petitioner files a fresh representation, raising his grievance before the respondent no.2, the same may be disposed of by the respondent no.2, expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of presentation of the representation in accordance to law. ";