1. The petitioner herein has challenged the appointment of the respondent no. 5 in the Aanganwadi of Chichod village, Gola Gamdi Faliu, Chhota Udepur pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.03.2011.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioner had preferred an application for being appointed as an Aanganwadi worker in the Aanganwadi of Chichod village, Gola Gamdi Faliu, Chhota Udepur. The interviews were conducted and finally respondent no. 5 was selected for the said post.
3. Mr.
Majmudar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was higher in merit and educational qualification as compared to respondent no. 5, respondent no. 5 was appointed for the post of aanganwadi worker. He submitted that respondent no. 5 being less meritorious than the petitioner ought not to have been appointed.
4. Mr.
Pranav Dave, learned AGP appearing for the respondent no. 1 supported the stand of the respondents and submitted that as per the ICDS scheme floated by the Central Government, the aanganwadi workers are appointed from amongst the local inhabitants and the petitioner not being a local inhabitant was not selected. He submitted that the aanganwadi workers have no statutory rights as the posts are not statutory.
5. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the records, it is clear that as per Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009, the aanganwadi workers should be appointed from within the village where the aanganwadi is located. Admittedly the petitioner does not fulfill this very criteria as the petitioner does not reside within the same area. The respondent no. 5 is residing in the same area where the aanganwadi is situated. Considering the fact that the establishment of the aanganwadi and the staff therein is done as per the ICDS scheme of the Central Government, this court does not think that any illegality or infirmity is committed by the respondents in the appointment of respondent no. 5. The expert committee after taking into consideration the rules and regulations of the scheme has decided to appoint respondent no. 5. Only educational qualifications do not play vital role in issues like this. It shall, therefore, not be proper for this Court to substitute the opinion of the expert committee in the present case. The petition, therefore is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top