Court No. - 43
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11303 of 2015 Petitioner :- Smt. Hemawati Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Varma,Santosh Kumar Mishra,Vishwanath Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order passed by the District Magistrate, Maharajganj, dated 29th November, 2014, whereby petitioner's claim for being appointed on the post of Mini Anganbari Karyakatri, has been rejected. It appears that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 44968 of 2014, which came to be disposed of by following order passed on 2.9.2014:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State.
The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no. 5, who has been appointed on the post of Mini Anganbari Karyakarti, submitted forged mark-sheets and certificates of High School and Intermediate examination. The petitioner has made an inquiry about the said fact under the Right to Information Act. The submission is that the representation dated 05.07.2014 has been filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2, which is still pending. The petitioner has been selected at S.L. No. 2 in the list prepared for appointment on the post of Mini Anganbari Karyakarti in village Rampur Khurd.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the District Magistrate, Maharajganj to take a decision on the representation filed by the petitioner after giving notice to the respondent no. 5 and providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order."
It is pursuant to this order that petitioner's claim has been considered and rejected.
Records reveal that selection proceedings were undertaken by the competent authority and the petitioner had also applied. It appears that in respect of village Rampur Khurd, respondent no. 5 was selected and placed at Serial No. 1, whereas the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 2. After enquiry it was found that papers submitted by the respondent no. 5 were forged and, therefore, she was not appointed. It was thereafter that petitioner claimed that her candidature be considered.
Claim of the petitioner has already been examined but the same has not been accepted on the ground that her selection was on account of her disclosure in the application that she belongs to below poverty line category, whereas in the enquiry held subsequently, it was found that petitioner belongs to above poverty line. It is for this reason that petitioner's claim has not been accepted and a direction has been issued to re-advertise the post.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the absence of a person belonging to BPL Category, the rules/government order permit selection of a person from APL Category also. It is also stated that petitioner's income certificate has otherwise not been cancelled.
A counter affidavit has been filed in which it is clearly stated in paragraph 6 that the three member committee has found that petitioner had wrongly disclosed her category to the selection committee and, therefore, her selection itself was invalid.
Although rejoinder affidavit has been filed but it is not disputed that petitioner belongs to above poverty line category. It is stated that five persons in all had applied.
It is quite possible that petitioner may have been selected and placed at Serial No. 2 only because she had disclosed her status as belonging to BPL Category. Once the category disclosed by the petitioner has been found to be wrong, there would be no error in the decision of the State taken to re-advertise the post. It is always open for the petitioner to apply afresh once the post is advertised.
In the facts and circumstances, as have been brought on record, no case is made out to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition, accordingly, fails and is dismissed.
It is, however, provided that the post itself would be advertised afresh within two months, in case the vacancy subsists, and it would be open for the petitioner also to apply.
Order Date :- 29.4.2019 Ranjeet Sahu