IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1076 (SS) of 2011 Km. Jyoti Bisht …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate present for respondent no. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent no. 5. 2. The petitioner was a candidate for appointment as “Anganbari Worker” for “Anganbari Centre” Tok Gahatiya Dewari, Block & Tehsil Dhari, district Nainital. It is an admitted case that the post of “Anganbari Worker” was advertised as a general vacancy. The petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 were inter alia candidates for the said post. It is an admitted case that the petitioner belongs to general category and respondent no. 5 belongs to Scheduled Caste Category. The petitioner was selected and a complaint was made by respondent no. 5. Since nothing was done on the compliant, respondent no. 5 filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 361 (SS) of 2011, which was disposed of by order dated 28.4.2011 directing the respondents to dispose the representation of the petitioner in terms of procedure laid down in Government order dated 24.2.2009. 3. Appointment of “Anganbari Workers” are presently done primarily in accordance with Government Order dated 24th February, 2009, in which an appellate 2 Authority is already provided, which consists of the following : “1. Chief Development Officer-Chairman. 2. A person nominated by the District Magistrate, who must be at least Class-II Officer, and, 3. District Programme Officer, who will be the member Secretary of this appellate body.” 4. After hearing the parties, the appellate authority came to the conclusion that the vacancy was wrongly advertised for general category candidate, as it ought to have been advertised only for Scheduled Caste Category candidate and therefore, has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner. Consequently, respondent no. 5 was appointed merely on the basis of the fact that she was one of the Scheduled Caste Category candidates. 5. This action of the respondents is not only absolutely arbitrary but in violation of the settled law. It is an admitted fact that respondent no. 5 was never selected. Therefore she could not have been given the appointment, as she never approved by the selection committee. However, more glaring fact is that the respondents authority have held that the vacancy ought to have been advertised only for the Scheduled Caste Category and respondent no. 5 to whom the appointment has been given belongs to Scheduled Caste Category is totally arbitrary as the vacancy was never notified as a reserved for S.C. category. 6. As such, the respondents are directed to give the appointment to the petitioner as “Anganbari Worker” for “Anganbari Centre” Tok Gahatiya Dewari, Block & Tehsil Dhari, district Nainital forthwith as soon as this order is 3 produced before the District Child Programme Officer, district Nainital. 7. In view of the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 22.11.2011 VKG