CW 5778/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.5778/2007 Smt. Mithlesh Sharma Versus State & (3) Ors. Date of Order ::: 12/09/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl.Govt. Adv., for respondent State Instant petition has been filed with the grievance that without assigning any reason, petitioner has not fairly been considered while making appointment on the post of Woman Supervisor, in pursuance to Circular dt.02/09/04 (Ann.5). Petitioner also worked as Anganwadi Worker as is evident from order dt.16/12/88 (Ann.1) and for the purposes of services which she rendered, experience certificate dt.23/05/02 has been issued which shows her experience from 01/011/88 to 23/05/02 (14 years). It appears from record that respondents later on initiated process to appoint such Anganwari worker who have rendered service for more than 10 years and holding qualification of matric/secondary from a recognised Board with other conditions of eligibility including age of 45 years as on 01/01/05; and for those in General category for being appointed as Woman CW 5778/07 //2// Supervisor against 25% vacancies reserved for Anganwari worker under Rajasthan Women & Child Development (State & Subordinate Service) Rules, 1988 (“Rules, 1988”) pursuant to circular dt. 02/09/04 (Ann.5). Being eligible in all respect, petitioner submitted her application and was called for interview vide letter dt.07/03/05 (Ann.6). However, in final list published of candidates selected & appointed as Women Supervisor on probation of two years vide order dt.07/09/06, her name did not appear since she was not selected and no reasons were assigned, she was again called for interview vide letter dt.15/05/07 (Ann.10) but again in subsequent list dt.12/07/07 (Ann.12), her name did not appear and no reason has been assigned as to why she was not found suitable; at this stage, legal notice was served. Hence this petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner fulfilled conditions of eligibility as provided in circular dt.02/09/04(Ann.5) and without assigning any reason, her candidature has been arbitrarily rejected and on both the two occasions, those who were juniors to her, were considered for regular appointment and denial of her fair consideration is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. CW 5778/07 //3// Respondents have filed reply to writ petition wherein only objection raised specifically in paras 7 & 9 is that after eligible Anganbari workers were called for interview, list of Women supervisor who were found suitable was prepared and appointment orders were issued after having followed procedure as provided in Rajasthan Women & Child Development (State & Subordinate) Service Rules, 1998 but as regards petitioner, since she was not found eligible for the post; as such has not been considered for appointment. From the record, it appears particularly as regards eligibility referred to in Circular (Ann.5), petitioner fulfills conditions of eligibility and only thereafter, she was called for interview twice but was not finally selected and no reason otherwise has been assigned by respondents in holding her to be either in- eligible or unsuitable in regard to fate of her participation. Counsel for respondents has only laid stress upon a judgment of Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Ameerbi (2007(1) SLR 722), writ petition is not maintainable. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties and pondered over material on CW 5778/07 //4// record. As regards preliminary objection raised by respondents placing reliance upon judgment of Apex Court in State of Karanataka Vs. Ameerbi (supra) it is of no assistance for the reason that petitioner is claiming consideration for appointment to the post of Woman Supervisor – process of which was initiated by respondents in pursuance of Circular (Ann.5) and those who were found eligible and considered to be suitable for posts of Woman Supervisor against 25% reserved for Anganwadi Worker, were appointed and placed on probation for a period of two years and the petitioner is denied of fair consideration for the post of woman supervisor. As regards merits, only objection raised in the reply is that petitioner was not found eligible for the post of woman supervisor. But nothing has been pointed out as to what kind of eligibility conditions, petitioner failed to fulfill and despite specific question put to the Counsel with regard to her eligibility, he was unable to justify their action holding her to be in-eligible for the post of Woman supervisor. That apart, conditions of eligibility as per Circular (Ann.5), in pursuance of which applications were invited, petitioner fulfills conditions of eligibility with regards to age, CW 5778/07 //5// academic qualification & so also of 10 years experience as Anganwari worker and for such good reasons treating her to be eligible, respondents called her for interview on both the two occasions as is evident from letters dt.07/03/05 & 15/05/07 (Ann.6 & 10). In such circumstances, holding petitioner to be in-eligible for the post of woman supervisor is not legally sustainable. Even reply does not disclose about unsuitability of petitioner if at all there was any. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Respondents are directed to consider candidature of petitioner for her appointment to the post of Woman Supervisor in pursuance of Circular dt.22/05/04 (Ann.5) taking note of conditions of eligibility referred to therein and after due consideration, if found suitable, necessary orders be passed of her appointment as Woman supervisor within three months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.5/5778CW07-1209.doc