[1] The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to quash and set aside the appointment of the respondent No.2 as Anganwadi Worker and to direct the respondent No.1 to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Center at Baria / Bhagat Falia, Village Vulundi, Taluka : Limkheda, District : Dahod.
[2] It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had issued public advertisement dated 25.02.2012 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Aganwadi Workers in different Center in the Taluka of Limkheda. The petitioner made application with requisite certificates / documents. The petitioner has averred that after the interview of the candidates who applied for Anganwadi Workers, the merit list for appointment was prepared and the petitioner was shown aSr.No.1 in the merit list as the petitioner was possessing more education qualifications than the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 was shown at Sr.No.2 in the merit list having less qualification than the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner was at Sr.No.1 in the merit list, to her shock and surprise, the respondent No.2 was appointed as Anganwadi Workers by the respondent No.1. Therefore, the husband of the petitioner gave complaint to online Gram Swagat Program on 06.06.2012. It is the case of the petitioner that the appointment of the respondent No.2 is an act of favouritism and with mala fide intention ignoring the parameters for the purpose of appointment as Anganwadi Workers.
[3] This petition is opposed by the respondent No.1 wherein it is stated that the Selection Committee headed by the Deputy Collector, Limkheda Sub Division with Child Development Project Officer, Limkheda Taluka Panchayat and Taluka Development Officer, Limkheda Taluka Panchayat met on 20.04.2012 where the petitioner, respondent No.2 and Ms.Baria Daxaben were present with their original documents and a merit list was prepared showing the petitioner at Sr.No.1, respondent No.2 at Sr.No.2 and Ms.Daxaben Baria at Sr.No.3. It is further stated in reply that later on, the Chairman of Limkheda Taluka Selection Committee and Deputy Collector, Limkheda forwarded a list showing the name of the respondent No.2 at Sr.No.1 and the petitioner at Sr.No.2. In view of the said second list, the respondent No.2 was issued appointment order on 27.04.2012 by the respondent No.1 appointing her as honorary Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi located at Baria / Bhagat Falia of Village : Vulundi, Taluka : Limkheda, District : Dahod. The respondent No.2 has also filed affidavit-in-reply denying the allegations made by the petitioner stating that the respondent No.2 was possessing the requisite qualification, which was required for the post and the Selection Committee has rightly selected her as Anganwadi Worker. It is further stated that the selection process undertaken by the respondent no.1 was transparent and fair and the petitioner has failed to point out any partiality or arbitrariness committed by the respondent No.1 to appoint the respondent No.2. It is further stated in the reply that the respondent No.2 has already taken over the charge of Anganwadi Worker since 01.05.2012 and there is no complaint against her by the respondent No.1. It is lastly stated in the reply that simply figuring the name in the merit list or select list does not give any right to the candidates to be appointed and the appointing authority has all rights to act upon the select list for good reasons and the selected candidates has no indefeasible right to be appointed and, therefore, the appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
[4] I have heard learned advocates for the parties.
[5] Learned advocate Mr.Dharmesh R. Patel for the petitioner submitted that the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee showing the petitioner at Sr.No.1 was after following due process of selection on comparing merits of the candidates. He submitted that the petitioner fulfilled eligibility and all criteria for the post of Anganwadi Worker and also possessed higher qualification then other candidates and, therefore, the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.1 in the merits list. He submitted that once the Selection Committee had found the petitioner more meritorious then all other candidates for the post in question and once the petitioner was placed at Sr.No.1 in the select list, it was not open to the Chairman of Limkheda Taluka Selection Committee to make a change in position of candidates in the select list. He submitted that the second list prepared at the instance of the Chairman was not as per merits of the candidates but on extraneous consideration and just to show favour to the respondent No.2. He submitted that the first list provides every details in respect of the candidates as per which the petitioner is shown more meritorious then the respondent No.2 and another candidate, whereas the second list, prepared at the instance of the Chairman, gives no details about the marks obtained by the candidates in Standard 10th and 12th.
He submitted that in the first list the petitioner is shown to have got 59.71% in Standard 10th and the respondent No.2 is shown to have got 56.15%. In Standard 12th, the petitioner is shown to have got 72.43% and the respondent No.2 got 65.29%. He submitted that the petitioner is having additional qualification of P.T.C. Such qualification is not with the respondent No.2 and other candidate. He submitted that in all respects, the petitioner is more meritorious then other two candidates and the petitioner was rightly placed at Sr.No.1 in the selection list prepared by the Selection Committee. Therefore, the petitioner was entitled to appointment order but instead the respondent No.2 was selected and appointed on the ground that she was of good nature. He submitted that this is clear case of favoritism and nepotism and urged to allow the petition.
[6] On the otherhand, learned advocate Mr.Nayan D. Parekh appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the petitioner has no indefeasible right to get appointment. He submitted that the Selection Committee after proper assessment found the respondent No.2 suitable for Anganwadi Worker and such being the decision on evaluation of the merits of the candidates, this Court may not sit in appeal over such decision of the Selection Committee, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the respondent No.2 was eligible and meeting with all criteria for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker and it was sole the discretion of the Selection Committee to select the respondent No.2 on the basis of comparing merits of the candidates and there was no question of showing any favour to the respondent No.2. He submitted that the respondent No.2 was found residing in the very area where Anganwadi was situated and, therefore, it was found that the respondent No.2 was eligible for appointment and given appointment and there was no mala fide or favoritism shown by the respondent No.1. He, thus, urged to dismiss the petition.
[7] Learned advocate Mr.H. S. Munshaw appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted that in the first list prepared by the Selection Committee, the petitioner was at Sr.No.1. However, since in the second list sent by Chairman of Limkheda Taluka Selection Committee the respondent No.2 was shown at Sr.No.1, the respondent No.2 was required to be given appointment and accordingly, she was given appointment. He submitted that the appointment of the respondent No.2 could not be said to be for extraneous consideration or on account of favoritism shown in favour of the respondent No.2. He submitted that simply because the petitioner had found place in the select list, she had not acquired indefeasible right to get appointment as Anganwadi Worker. He, thus, submitted that the respondent No.1 could not be said to have acted in illegal and arbitrary manner. He, thus, urged to dismiss the petition.
[8] Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused record of the case, what appear is that in connection with the advertisement at Annexure B for appointment of Anganwadi Worker in the Center of Baria / Bhagat Falia in Village : Vulundi, Taluka : Limkheda, District : Dahod, the petitioner, the respondent No.2 and third candidate named Daxaben Baria were selected and shown in the select list at Sr.No.1, 2 and 3 respectively. The select list prepared by the Selection Committee is at Annexure D, wherein the marks in Standard 10th and 12th examinations obtained by all the candidates are shown against their names wherefrom it appears that the petitioner has secured higher percentage of marks in Standard 10th and 12th than the respondent No.2 and third candidate. The petitioner is also shown to have additional qualification of PTC which is not there with the respondent No.2 and third candidate. The petitioner is also fulfilling the criteria of married woman and other criteria as required by the advertisement. Therefore, if the selection list to be operated, the petitioner was required to be appointed as Anganwadi Worker. However, instead of giving appointment as per the said list, the Chairman of the Selection Committee prepared second list showing change in the position of the petitioner from Sr.No.1 to Sr.No.2. The respondent No.1 who has filed affidavit-in-reply has not given any reasons for changing the position of the petitioner from Sr.No.1 to Sr.No.2 and placing the respondent No.2 at Sr.No.1. In the reply, the respondent No.1 has stated that after the first list was prepared, the Chairman of Likheda Taluka Selection Committee and the Deputy Collector forwarded another list showing the respondent No.2 at Sr.No.1 and the petitioner at Sr.No.2 and, therefore, the respondent No.2 was issued appointment order. Except above statement in the reply, no reasons were given as to why the respondent No.2 came to be placed at Sr.No.1 in another list. However, in response to online complaint made by the husband of the petitioner, the information for selecting the respondent No.2 for Anganwadi Worker is provided by the Chairman of Limkheda Taluka Selection Committee, which is placed at Annexure A wherein it is stated that since the respondent No.2 is coming from local area and since she was found to be of good nature she was placed at Sr.No.1 and given appointment for the post of Anganwadi Worker. It is stated in the information that if the petitioner is aggrieved by such decision, the petitioner may file appeal in the Court of law.
[9] There is no denial of the fact that the petitioner is also from the local area. Therefore, it clearly appears from the above record of the case and information provided to the husband of the petitioner that the petitioner was more meritorious than the respondent No.2 and was rightly placed at Sr.No.1. From the information it further appears that the respondent No.2 have been favoured by the Chairman of Limkheda Taluka Selection Committee on the ground that she was of good nature. It is nowhere stated in the advertisement nor even it is the case of the respondents that a candidate who is otherwise less meritorious could be selected and given appointment simply because such candidate is found to be of good nature. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the respondent No.2 on the ground that the respondent No.2 was of good nature, was dehors the eligibility criteria of the selection provided in the advertisement. The petitioner and the respondent No.2 both hail from same area where Anganwadi is located and both being married women, the petitioner was correctly placed at Sr.No.1 considering her higher marks in Standard 10th and 12th and additional qualification of PTC. Therefore, in no circumstances, the respondent No.2 could have been permitted to march over the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker. Therefore, the selection and appointment of the respondent No.2 for the post of Anganwadi Worker on the ground that she was found to be of good nature could be said to be for extraneous consideration and an act of favoritism and nepotism by the Chairman of Limkheda Taluka Selection Committee. Such selection and appointment of the respondent No.2 cannot stand the test of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The same is required to be quashed and set aside and the respondents are required to be directed to act on the basis of the first selection list wherein the petitioner was shown at Sr.No.1 for the purpose of appointment as Anganwadi Worker.
[10] For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. The selection and appointment of the respondent No.2 to the post of Anganwadi Worker in the Center of Baria / Bhagat Falia, Village : Vulundi, Taluka : Limkheda, District : Dahod is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent No.1 is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker as per the first select list at Annexure D wherein the petitioner is shown at Sr.No.1, for the post of Anganwadi Worker in the Center of Baria / Bhagat Falia, Village : Vulundi, Taluka : Limkheda, District : Dahod within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order. Rule is made absolute accordingly. Direct service is permitted.
(C.L.SONI, J.) vijay Page 8 of 8