- (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petition has been preferred because of inaction on the part of the respondents in not issuing appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Lady Supervisor on the ground that when the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Sewika, she was below the age of 18 years.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Anganwari Sewika. She worked several years on the said post and thereafter, the new advertisement was published by the respondents for altogether another post of Lady Supervisor. Applications were invited on 13th November, 2007, for the Post of Lady Supervisor. The petitioner applied for the said post and the petitioner was duly qualified and eligible for the appointment of Lady Supervisor. The Advertisement is at Annexure1 to the memo of the petition. Thereafter, the petitioner was successful candidate in all the tests taken by the respondents. The petitioner was also selected as a Lady Supervisor. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only reason assigned for not giving appointment letter to the petitioner is that when the petitioner was appointed on some other post i.e. Anganwari Sewika, she was below the age of 18 years. In fact, looking to the advertisement, there was no such condition, at all, attached or there was no such eligibility or criteria attached for the selection of Lady Supervisor. The only requirement for the applicant to be selected for the post of Lady Supervisor is that the applicant should be Anganwari Sewika. and that candidate should have ten years' working experience as Anganwari Sewika, if a candidate is Graduate in any faculty, or 15 Years' experience as Anganwari Sewika, if a candidate is Matriculate. The petitioner is falling within the first category. The petitioner was working as Anganwari Sewika from 14th July, 1984, and she is Graduate and, therefore, as on date, application for the post of Lady Supervisor, the petitioner was duly eligible and qualified as she was appointed as Anganwari Sewika in the year, 1984, and having experience of 10 years with graduation and, therefore, the reason assigned by the respondents that though she is, otherwise, fully qualified and eligible and selected also for the post of Lady Supervisor, the petitioner cannot be appointed as Lady Supervisor because when the petitioner appointed as Anganwari Sewika, she was less than 18 years of age. This ground cannot be added as a criteria after the whole selection process is over. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2002(1) J.C.R. Page No. 301, especially, upon Paragraph Nos. 5 & 6 thereof.
(3.) It is also submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the post of Lady Supervisor is altogether a different post. Post of Lady Supervisor is not a promotional post of Anganwari Sewika and, therefore, the reason given by the respondents that even though the petitioner is otherwise qualified, eligible and selected for the post of Lady Supervisor, cannot be appointed because she was less than 18 years of age, when she was appointed, as Anganwari Sewika, is not tenable at law because post of Anganwari Sewika is different and distinct post. This ground is no ground in the eyes of law. Moreover, such criteria cannot be added subsequently and, therefore, let a writ of mandamus be issued by this Court upon respondents to appoint the petitioner as Lady Supervisor, who has already been selected by the competent respondentauthorities.;