- (1.) BY the Court. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner appellant was the aspirant for the post of Aanganwari Sewika as she was the second candidate and the respondent No. 8 was given appointment, however she did not join. The petitioner's contention before the learned single Judge was that the petitioner was only the leftover candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant pointed out that the respondent No.8' was in fact given appointment and during the pendency of the writ petition, her appointment was cancelled. It is submitted that in view of the above reasons, the petitioner appellant was entitled to the post in the selection process for which a meeting of the aam sabha was convened on 5th October, 2009.
(3.) WE have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the considered opinion that admittedly, the aam sabha selected the respondent No.8 in its meeting held on 5th October, 2009 and she was appointed on the post. According to the petitioner appellant, though the respondent No. 8 joined but her appointment was cancelled. The learned single Judge has observed that though the petitioner was the second candidate but she was not a selected candidate as there is difference between a second candidate in the process of selection and a second selected candidate or a candidate in the waiting list. So far as this finding is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly observed so.;