1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP(T) No.9192 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.12.2010 ________________________________________________________________ Block Anganwari Workers' Union and another. .....Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. .....Respondents. Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. 1 Whether approved for reporting? No. ________________________________________________________________ For the petitioners: Mr. Tarlok Jamwal, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K. Sharma, J. (Oral). The petitioner herein is 'Block Aganwari Workers' Union, Jhandutta, District Bilaspur'. Petitioner No.2 Ms. Usha Nadda is its President. 2. At the relevant time members of the petitioner-union mentioned in para 6(iii) of the petition were working as Aganwari Workers. Vide advertisement dated 22.10.2002, Annexure A-2, appearing in daily Hindi newspaper 'Amar Ujjala', Chandigarh edition, issue on dated 28th October, 2002, applications for as many as 242 posts of Supervisor were invited by the respondent- department so as to reach within 30 days from the date of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 publication of the advertisement i.e. on or before 28.11.2002. However, the members of the petitioner-union were not called for the written test on the ground that they were not having the requisite qualifying service of five years as Aganwari Worker as on 28.10.2002, i.e. the date of publication of advertisement, Annexure A-2. To the contrary, according to the petitioner-union all its' members were having the requisite qualifying service of five years as Aganwari Worker on the last date for submission of applications i.e. 28.11.2002 or in any case they were fulfilling all the eligibility conditions as on the date of Written Test for the post, i.e. 19.1.2003. 3. Against the above back drop, the petition was filed before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal(since abolished), which permitted the members of the petitioner-union to appear in the written test, on the following prayers vide para 7(i) to (v) : “(i)That the respondents may be directed to consider the members of the Applicant's Union for appointment to the post of Supervisors; (ii) that the respondents may be directed to issue call letters to the members of the applicant Union on the basis of the applications submitted by them pursuant to Annexure:A-2, dated 28th October, 2002; (iii) that the respondents may be directed to offer appointment letters to the members of the applicant Union after adjudging their suitability on the basis of screening test/viva voice examination to be held w.e.f. 19th January, 2003 onwards; (iv) That the respondents may be directed to 3 frame a scheme for regularizing the services of the Anganwari Workers: (v) That the respondents may be directed to pay Rs.3,000/- per month towards honorarium." 4. In reply on behalf of the respondents, the following stand has been taken vide para 6 (v) to (ix) and (a to d) on merits : “ (v) to (ix) In reply to these paras it is submitted that the Government has framed the Recruitment and Promotion rules for the post of Supervisor and according to these rules 90% posts of Supervisors are to be filled up from amongst the Anganwari Workers/Balwadi Teachers/ Balsevikas-cum-Craft Teachers, who are Matriculate having 5 years service with the age not above 50 years. A copy of the said rules is annexed at Annexure R-1. According to these rules the department advertised 242 posts of Supervisors on 26.10.2002 and applications were invited from the eligible Anganwari Worker/Bal sevika/Balsevikas-cum Craft teachers within 30 days from the date of advertisement published in the newspapers. In these paras, the plea taken by the applicant that condition with regard to 5 years experience in Recruitment and Promotion rules should not be kept has no relevancy as the posts of Supervisor is a Class-III post in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8100 and the job of Supervisor carries higher responsibilities. Keeping in view the job responsibility of Supervisor it will not be in the fitness of things to give any kind of relaxation in the prescribed Recruitment and promotion rules especially with regard to experience as the Government has to keep in mind the efficiency aspect also in consideration. 4 It is pertinent to mention here that the Anganwari Worker is an honorary worker and not a Government servant. The promotion avenues are provided to the govt. servant only. However, the State Government has taken a lenient view with regard to their futur4e and decided that 90% posts of Supervisors will be filled up by direct recruitment from amongst the Anganwari Workers, Balwadi Teachers and Balsevikas, who are found eligible in accordance with the R&P Rules, but the plea taken by the applicants that provision so made with regard to 5 years experience in R&P rules should not be kept, is totally wrong and baseless especially in view of the job responsibilities of the Supervisor. Moreover, there is a lot of difference between the salary of Anganwari Worker and Supervisor i.e. Rs.700/- and Rs.8000/- per month approximately at the initial stage and as such the clause of experience for the post of Supervisor is most essential. It is also pertinent to State here that applicants have not completed the 5 years service as Anganwari Worker, therefore, at this stage these applicants cannot be considered for the post of Supervisor. However, on the direction of Hon'ble Tribunal the applicantshavebe4en allowed to appear in the written test conducted on 19.1.2003 on provisional basis. It is relevant to submit here that posts were advertised on 28.10.2002 and applicants should have approached the Hon'ble Tribunal in October and November 2002. But they filled present applicant on at the fag end towards the examination fixed on 19.1.2003. (x) (a to d) The averments made in these paras 5 have already been replied in the preceding paras, the minimum experience of 5 years is essential for the post of Supervisor and it is not possible to abolish the clause of 5 years experience in R&P rules of Supervisor. Hence, the plea taken by the applicant to abolish the clause of 5 years experience in R&P rules for the post of Supervisor is tally wrong and baseless. As such their application deserves to be dismissed the applicants have not completed the prescribed experience of 5 years as on 28.10.2002 and cannot be considered for the post of Supervisor at this stage.” 5. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to declare the result of the written test/interview for the post of Supervisor in the respondent-department held during 2003 and consider the cases of those candidates who have qualified in the said test/interview, in case they were having the requisite qualifying service as Aganwari Worker as on 19.1.2003 i.e. the date of written test in accordance with law and justice, within three months from the date of production of copy of this judgment by President of the petitioner-union. 6. In view of disposal of the main petition, pending CMP(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of as infructuous. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 24th December, 2010 (Jai)