Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chhaya Gaikwad, was appointed as an Anganwadi Karyakarti at Mini Anganwadi, Sawa, Hingoli, following a selection process initiated by a third advertisement dated 22/05/2011. The first respondent, Renuka Davande, had applied earlier but was initially ineligible due to age. After multiple advertisements and cancellations, the petitioner was selected based on merit with 72.46% marks, while the first respondent scored 68.46%. The first respondent appealed to the Divisional Commissioner, who set aside the petitioner's appointment and directed that the first respondent be appointed, relying on the first advertisement. The petitioner challenged this order. The High Court held that the Divisional Commissioner erred in ignoring the subsequent selection process and the petitioner's superior merit. The court found that the cancellation of the second selection process was not challenged, and the third advertisement was a fresh process. The impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner's appointment was restored.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Anganwadi Worker Selection - Merit-Based Appointment - Government Resolution dated 20/05/2009 - The court considered whether the appellate authority could cancel a valid appointment made after a fresh selection process based on an earlier advertisement. Held that the subsequent selection process was conducted afresh and the petitioner was selected on merit, and the appellate authority erred in ignoring the later selection and relying solely on the first advertisement (Paras 1-10). B) Administrative Law - Cancellation of Selection Process - Arbitrariness - The court examined whether the cancellation of the second selection process was valid. Held that the cancellation was not challenged and the third selection process was conducted, making the earlier process irrelevant (Paras 3-8). C) Service Law - Appellate Authority - Scope of Powers - The appellate authority must consider all relevant facts and cannot base its decision on an earlier advertisement when a fresh selection has been made. Held that the impugned order was perverse and set aside (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in setting aside the appointment of the petitioner and directing appointment of respondent No.1 based on the first advertisement, ignoring subsequent selection processes.
Final Decision
The impugned judgment and order dated 31/07/2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Appeal No.18/2013 is quashed and set aside. The appointment of the petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarti is restored. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
Law Points
- Selection process for Anganwadi Karyakarti must be based on merit
- Government Resolution dated 20/05/2009 provides guidelines for selection
- cancellation of selection process without valid reasons is arbitrary
- appellate authority must consider all relevant material
