CWP-10550/2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH SB Civil Writ Petition No.10550/2010 Ranjana Patidar Vs. State of Raj. & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 06/08/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. NK Singhal, for petitioner. Instant writ petition has been filed with the grievance that despite the petitioner was placed in the order of merit at No. 1 as per the list forwarded by Gram Sabha, she has not been considered for appointment for the post of Angan Bari Worker and at the same time, the respondent No.5, who is much lower in the order of merit has been given appointment in arbitrary manner. It appears from the record that the applications for the post of Angan Bari Worker/Sahayika were invited by the respondents and five applications were received for Angan Bari Worker and two for Sahayika and the Gram Sabha in its meeting held on 05/07/2010, after taking note of the applicants who submitted their application, forwarded the name of one Smt. Sharda who is member of Scheduled Caste to be considered for appointment. However, the authority after taking into consideration the eligibility & the academic record of the individuals considered it appropriate to appoint respondent No.5 vide order dt. 09/07/2010. It will be relevant to observe that the respondent No.5-Parwati Bai apart from CWP-10550/2010 [2] being Graduate is member of BPL family. The submission made by counsel that the petitioner was at No.1 in the order of merit and still not considered for appointment is without substance and is not corroborated from the material on record for the reasons that what has been stressed by the petitioner about her placement in the order of merit is factually incorrect. In fact, the Gram Sabha, in its meeting held on 05/07/2010, has only mentioned about the applications which were received for the post of Angan Bari Worker and it is her total misconception as from the communication dt. 05/07/2010 (Anx.5) that the petitioner was at No. 1 in the order of merit and the applicant-Sharda, whose name was forwarded, has not made any complaint. At the same time, the respondents, after taking into consideration the academic record and the fact that the respondent No.5 being member of BPL family, considered it appropriate to consider her for appointment. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.5, who has been finally considered for appointment, is not eligible to hold the post. Taking note therefore, this Court does not find any substance in the instant writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.2/10550CW2010-final.doc