JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner an Aanganwari Sevika, participated in the exercise for appointment of Lady Supervisor under the Department of
Social Welfare, Women and Child development, Government of Jharkhand
under advertisement issued on 28.11.2007 (Annexure 3). The eligibility
criteria for such Aanganwari Sevika laid down at clause 2 of the said
advertisement was that those having qualification of Graduate were required
to have at least 10 years of qualifying satisfactory service as Sevika and
those having qualification of Matric were required to have 15 years of
qualifying satisfactory service. As per clause 3 the age relaxation of 5 years
was to be granted. Clause 8 prescribed the process of appointment. Clause
8(ii) laid down that for such appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor, the applicant Aanganwari Sevika has to face written examination comprising
two part i.e. General Knowledge and Integrated Child Development
Scheme(ICDS). Both the papers should have 100 marks each. Based upon
such examination, on the recommendation of the selection committee
constituted at the divisional level the Divisional Commissioner in turn was
empowered to take decision in the matter of such appointment. In such
circumstances, the petitioner after facing the written examination fetched 130
marks. Incidentally, four others Aanganwari Sevikas also fetched 130 marks.
Amongst all those 5 persons whose names are enclosed in the chart
indicated at para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by Respondent No. 2 on
13.6.2011, four such candidates elder in age to the petitioner were appointed against the vacant posts. In these circumstances, the petitioner approached
this Court for redressal of her grievances.
It is the contention of the petitioner that such appointment was made
without any Rules specifying the criteria or norms contained in the
advertisement. The grant of appointment on the basis of seniority in age to
such persons having same marks to the petitioner is discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) RESPONDENTS were allowed time to file response as to what are the norms under which such course has been adopted. They were
asked to disclose if there are any further vacancies available under the
respondent department for appointment to the post of Lady Supervisor. The
respondents in their reply to I.A. No. 800 of 2012 have disclosed that there
are no further vacancies. They have also indicated that by the notification
issued on 2.12.2011 issued under the relevant provisions of Jharkhand Staff
Selection Commission Act of 2008 in para 5 thereof provision have been
made to take care of such eventuality when more than one candidate have
same marks. In that situation selection has to be made on the basis seniority
in date of birth. It is however not in dispute that the said selection exercise
took place in the year 2010 before coming into force of the said notification.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.