Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The contention of the petitioner is that she is the resident of Village Barni, Block Sewapur, District Varanasi and falls under the Scheduled Caste category. In pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.2.2008, she applied for the post of Anganbari Karyakarti on 25.2.2008. The last date of filing the application was 5.3.2008, but instead of appointing the petitioner, the respondent no.4 has been appointed, who is admittedly not the resident of Barni Village. The petitioner filed the complaint on which the enquiry was made and the appointment of the respondent no.4 has been justified by the District Programme Officer vide his order dated 4.3.2011 on the ground that initially the advertisement was made in the year 2006 and the applications were invited four times, but when the applications have not been received from Village Barni, then the application from the adjoining Gram Sabha has been invited and the respondent no.4 has accordingly been appointed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged the findings recorded by the District Programme Officer by way of filing the representation before the District Magistrate stating therein that the petitioner has applied for the post of Anganbari Karyakarti on 25.2.2008 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.2.2008, therefore, it is wrong to say that no application has been received. The petitioner is the resident of Village Barni. Under the Government Oder, the candidate, who is the resident of the same village, is entitled for the appointment on the post of Anganbari Karyakarti. The said representation is still pending consideration.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Magistrate, Varanasi to dispose the representation of the petitioner, which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order, after giving opportunity to the respondent no.4. It is further directed that in case if any irregularity is found in the appointment of the respondent no.4, necessary action shall be taken against the official/officer, who was involved in making such appointment.
Order Date :- 9.11.2011 bgs/