JUDGMENT S.R. Singh, J.
1. Advertisement dated January 17, 1995 for appointment of Mukhya Sevlka is sought to be quashed by means of the present petition.
2. Sri R. C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the notification is vitiated stemming from the reason that all the posts were sought to be filled by direct recruitment whereas according to Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Child Development and Nutrition (Subordinate) Service Rules. 1992, 25% of the vacancies ought to have been filled by promotion from amongst qualified and eligible Aganwadi workers. The submission made by the learned counsel is bereft of merits. As a matter of fact. according to the rules notified by Notification dated November 16. 1992, the post of Mukhya Sevika was envisaged to be filled by direct recruitment through departmental selection committee attended with interview. The rules were amended by means of the Notification No. 457/60-2-95-58 Adhi-90. dated December 26, 1996 by which Rule 4 of 1992 Rules was substituted by the following rule :
"4. Mukhya Sevika.--(1) 75% by direct recruitment through the Selection Committee from amongst female candidates on the basis of competitive examination and interview.
(2) 25% by direct recruitment through the Selection Committee on the basis of interview from amongst High School or equivalent examination pass, Anganwadi workers who have completed ten years continuous service as such and have not attained the age of more than 45 years on the first day of the year of recruitment."
The rules were further amended by notification dated June 19, 1998. The Rule 4 as it stood substituted by 1998 notification reads as below :
"4. Mukhya Sevika.--(1) Fifty per cent through the Selection Committee from amongst female candidates on the basis of competitive examination and interview.
(2) Fifty per cent by direct recruitment through the Selection Committee in accordance with Rule 15B from amongst High School or equivalent examination pass, Anganwadi workers who have completed ten years continuous service as such and have not attained the age of more than forty five years on the first day of the year of recruitment."
3. It would thus transpire that the appointment to the post of Mukhya Sevika was never to be made by promotion. Initially, cent per cent posts were to be filled by selection on the basis of interview. Subsequently in 1996, 75% posts were required to be filled by direct recruitment through Selection Committee from amongst female candidates on the basis of interview from amongst High School or equivalent examination and ultimately in 1998, 50% posts were stipulated to be filled by direct recruitment from amongst High School or equivalent examination pass Aganwadi workers who had completed 10 years of continuous service as such and have not attained the age of more than 45 years on the first day of the year of recruitment. The advertisement in question dates back to the year 1995 and at that time, all the posts of Mukhya Sevika were required to be filled by direct recruitment through departmental Selection Committee on the basis of interview according to Rule 4 as it stood prior to substitution by December 26, 1996 notification, the argument advanced by the learned counsel is born of misconception. There is no infirmity permeating the Impugned advertisement.
4. In the result, the petition fails and dismissed. Interim order shall stand vacated.