- (1.) THIS appeal, which is time barred by 168 days, has been preferred against an order dated 15.10.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P (S) No.2112/2008. However, the appeal has been filed along with an application for condonation of delay, in which it has been stated that the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation since the appellant had preferred a review petition against the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, against which this appeal has been filed.
(2.) ALTHOUGH we are not convinced with the explanation offered with regard to the delay in filing this appeal, we thought it just and appropriate to permit the counsel for the appellant to address us on the merit of the appeal merely to avoid any miscarriage of justice, if there be any. We, therefore, permitted the counsel for the appellant to argue this appeal on merit. On hearing the counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it could be noticed that the petitioner -appellant had filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge for a direction to the respondent no.2, Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro, for holding an enquiry and for consideration of the objection of the petitioner in her representation where she had challenged the appointment of the respondent no.5 on the post of Anganwari Sewika. She had essentially contended that the respondent no.5, who was selected for the post of Anganwari Sewika, was only possessing the certificate of class X pass, which is the basic qualification for the post and the appellant is possessing a higher qualification as she was holding Intermediate degree, which is one degree above the qualification of the selected candidate.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant emphasized that in view of the circular of the respondent - State indicating that a person having higher qualification should be selected for the post of Anganwari Sewika, the appellant had a superior claim over the selected candidate, i.e. respondent no.5.;