IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No. 11756 of 2008. Decided on: 30.12.2010. Chanderawati. …Petitioner. -Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh and Others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents. : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 4 already exparte. None for respondent No. 5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner has assailed the appointment of respondent No. 5 to the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Syarla, under ICDS Project, Rajgarh. 2. Case of the petitioner, in a nut-shell, is that initially the interviews for filling up the post of Anganwari Helper were held on 27th July, 2003. Petitioner alongwith one Smt. Sudesh Sharma participated in the selection process. However, the respondent- State decided to hold fresh interview on 29.10.2004 at the instance of the Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat. 3. Mr. B.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that his client was more meritorious vis-à- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - vis respondent No. 5. According to him, the earlier interviews have been cancelled in violation of notification dated 20.02.2003. He also argued that his client belongs to O.B.C./I.R.D.P. category. Respondent No. 4 though duly served, however, neither she is represented by any counsel nor she filed any reply to the petition. Respondent No. 5 has chosen to file reply through Shri Chander Shekher Thakur, Advocate. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that earlier the process was initiated for filling up the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Syarla, under ICDS Project, Rajgarh. Petitioner alongwith Smt. Sudesh Sharma were interviewed on 27.07.2003. This interview was cancelled at the instance of Pradhan and fresh interview was held on 29.10.2004. Petitioner has secured 3.5 marks, whereas respondent No. 5 has secured 4 marks as per Annexure R-2. The reason assigned for cancellation of the interview dated 28.06.2003 was that certain eligible candidates could not appear in the interview. It is settled law by now that all the candidates must submit their applications on or before the date prescribed. The interview dated 28.06.2003 could not be cancelled only on the pretext that certain candidates could not apply. The respondent-State has issued a notification on 20.02.2003, whereby as per paragraph No. 11-A, the cancellation of interview could be only if the selection of Anganwari Worker/Helper has not been made in accordance with the guidelines and challenged by the local people’s representatives. In the instant case, it was not the case that the earlier interview was - 3 - not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the respondent- State. Thus, the decision of the respondent-State to conduct fresh interview by cancelling the earlier interview dated 28.06.2003, was illegal. 6. It is evident from the details of interview as per Annexure R-2 that the petitioner has passed 8th standard with 56%, 10th with 60% and 10+2 with 41%, whereas the respondent No. 5, Smt. Seema Devi, has studied up to 5th standard. In view of this, the petitioner’s case could not be ignored. It is true that there is no minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Anganwari Helper, but if the candidate with higher qualification, as in the present case of +2 was available, there was no reason to overlook the merit. The Selection Committee has committed illegality by ignoring the case of the petitioner and recommending the case of respondent No. 5. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussion made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The appointment of respondent No. 5 to the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Syarla under ICDS Project, Rajgarh is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-do the entire selection process, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma) Judge December 30, 2010. (bhupender) - 4 - - 5 -