AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH , J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court assailing the appointment of respondent No.11 as Anganwari Worker in Village Mangra, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal, on the ground that she had submitted her application beyond the cut -off date fixed for submission of the same.
(2.) PETITIONER is an handicapped lady, belongs to general category and having Haryana Resident Certificate. The post of Anganwari Worker of general category was advertised on 01.10.2010 by the beat of drum in Village Mangra, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal. In pursuance to the said munadi, the petitioner had applied and her candidature was considered for the appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. Respondent No.11 who did not apply in pursuance to this advertisement/munadi has been appointed and, therefore, the selection and appointment of respondent No.11 is not in accordance with the advertisement. Upon notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed by the respondents and in para 4 of the reply on merits, it has been mentioned that initially the munadi was conducted in the village by the Sarpanch of the said village in response to the letter dated 27.08.2010 for the post of Anganwari Worker for which the interview was fixed for 15.09.2010 and the last date for submission of applications was 11.09.2010. The said interview date was postponed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal and was fixed for 08.11.2010. Further letter dated 01.10.2010 issued to the Sarpanch for conducting munadi in the village and notice was also pasted on the public places to the effect that the interview would be held on 08.11.2010 and the last date for submission of the applications was 02.11.2010. In the munadi it was specifically mentioned that the candidates who had already submitted their applications in the CDPO Office for the interview which was to be held on 15.09.2010 need not apply. On this basis, counsel for the respondents submits that the applications already submitted in pursuance to the earlier munadi were also considered alongwith fresh applications which were received in pursuance to the second munadi conducted by the respondents in pursuance to the communication dated 01.10.2010 addressed to the Sarpanch. On the basis of the said interview, the selection has been made and respondent No.11 has been found to be the most meritorious candidate.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contends that only those application could be considered for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker which were received in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.10.2010 and the earlier applications could not be considered. He, therefore, contends that the earlier applications which were submitted having been considered violates the requirement of the advertisement and, therefore, consideration of those candidates whose applications were received prior to the date of fresh advertisement is not sustainable. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the application of respondent No.11 was received between the period of 11.09.2010 to 01.10.2010 which could not be taken into consideration. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the stand taken by the respondents in their written statement which clearly depicts that the earlier munadi was conducted in the village and the interview was postponed which was rescheduled and it is between the said period that a fresh munadi was conducted and fresh applications were called upon. The candidates who had earlier applied in pursuance to the earlier munadi were not required to submit the applications again and, therefore, the action of the respondents in any manner cannot be said to be not in consonance with the requirement of the advertisement. In any case, the same is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as every candidate who had in pursuance to the advertisement applied for the post is entitled to participate in the selection process.;