SAKOO (SMT.) Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
LAWS(RAJ)-2008-2-110
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 18,2008

Sakoo (Smt.) Appellant
VERSUS
State of Rajasthan And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Munishwar Nat H Bhandari, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the selection of respondent No. 6 on the post of 'Anganbari Karyakarta ' by Gram Panchayat, Khardia of Panchayat Samiti, Sindhari.
(2.) THE challenge has been made mainly on the ground that as per Annexure/7 dt. 15.09.2003 issued by the Women and Child Development Department, the selection was required to be made as per para No. 6 of the circular where it is provided that if a candidate is having qualification then the preference is required to be given. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the petitioner is having qualification of graduation she is being ignored whereas the non petitioner No. 6 having only qualification of Xth has been given appointment in violation of the circular dt. 15.09.2003. The further grievance raised in the writ petition is that as per the circular in reference, the selection has to be made by the Gram Sabha whereas in the present matter such selection has been made by the Gram Panchayat in violation of the instructions of the Government. The selection has been made by incompetent body and that too without due publicity for calling for the application for consideration of the candidature of the eligible candidates.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 and 5 submits that necessary consideration was made by the Gram Panchayat pursuant to the order Annexure/4 dt. 12.02.2007 in as much as Child Development Project Officer issued direction for such consideration at the earliest. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has not applied for the post of 'Anganbari Karyakarta, hence question of consideration of her candidature does not arise therefore, respondent No. 6 was appointed pursuant to the only application received by the Gram Panchayat. Thus, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 to 5 supported the action of Gram Panchayat, though admitted that Gram Panchayat failed to give publicity for calling for application and competence as per circular dt. 15.09.2003.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.