State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Bal ... vs Smt. Gayatri Devi
2019 Latest Caselaw 6275 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Court No. - 1
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 316 of 2019
 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar & Ors.
 
Respondent :- Smt. Gayatri Devi
 
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Shivam Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal,J.

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

1. Heard Sri Anand Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent.

2. This special appeal filed by the appellants State is barred by 177 days.

3. On due consideration, as cause assigned in the affidavit filed in support of application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal (C.M. Application No. 87306 of 2019) is satisfactory, C.M. Application No. 87306 of 2019 is allowed. Delay in filing this special appeal is condoned.

4. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 2.1.2019 passed by the learned Writ Court in Service Single No. 388 of 2015 : Smt. Gayatri Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others, whereby the learned Writ Court, while allowing the writ petition, quashed the order dated 13.8.2014, by which the candidature of the writ petitioner for appointment on the post of Supervisor (Mukhyasevika) has been rejected on the ground that she has obtained 30 marks in the selection, whereas the minimum qualifying marks were 31. The learned Writ Court has also directed to the appellants herein to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for selection for having qualification of M.A. and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that on 16.9.2010, applications were invited for filling up 50% posts of Supervisor (Mukhya Sevika) under U.P. Bal Vikas and Pushtahar Subordinate Service Rules, 1992. The cut of date was 1.7.2010. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the respondent also applied for the said post annexing all the material documents. On 9.8.2011, respondent received a letter by which she was required to submit the documents for verification and appear before the District Programme Officer, Pratapgarh. In compliance thereof, the respondent appeared and submitted documents relating to educational qualification and, thereafter, the verification of the documents was made. On verification, total 30 marks was awarded to her and as the minimum qualifying marks were 31, the candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected vide order dated 13.8.2014.

6. According to the appellants, against the order dated 13.8.2014, the writ petitioner filed writ petition no.388 of 2015 (S/S). The learned Writ Court found that the selection was held in the year 2014 for the post of Mukhya Sevika, in which the claim of the writ petitioner was considered for selection on the post of Mukhya Sevika. The writ petitioner had submitted her documents for verification in pursuance of the letter dated 9.8.2011 and on the date of submission of the documents for verification, the writ petitioner was having additional qualification of M.A. and she was also having additional qualification at the time of consideration of her application, as such, claim of the writ petitioner for grant of additional marks for higher qualification could not have been rejected simply because the post of Mukhyasevika on which the selection was being held related to the year 2010.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the letter 16.9.2010 and has submitted that as per para-4 of the aforesaid letter, the cut of date was 1.7.2010 and admittedly, the writ petitioner obtained the qualification of M.A. on 2.1.2011, therefore, the appellants have rightly not awarded any marks on her additional qualification of M.A. but the learned Writ Court has committed error in quashing the order dated 13.8.2014 by holding that at the time of consideration of her application, the writ petitioner was having additional qualification of M.A., therefore, she is entitled to get additional marks. Thus, the impugned order dated 2.1.2019 is liable to be set-aside.

8. From perusal of the impugned order dated 2.1.2019, it reveals that after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record, learned Writ Court has found that in case the selection was held in the year 2014 and for that purpose process for verification of documents etc. were started after the writ petitioner had obtained additional qualification of M.A., then respondents/ appellants herein should have considered the additional qualification of writ petitioner in the selection held for the post of Mukhyasevika and should have granted additional marks for having additional qualification of M.A., as prescribed under the Rules, therefore, the decision for not granting additional marks to the writ petitioner was not justified and as such, the writ petitioner was entitled to get additional marks for having additional qualification of M.A. for the post of Mukhyasevika. Relevant part of the order dated 2.1.2019 reads as under :-

"Admittedly, the selection was held in the year 2014 for the post of Mukhyasevika in which the claim of petitioner was considered for selection on the post of Mukhyasevika. It is to be noted that neither any advertisement was made for considering the appointment/selection on the post of Mukhyasevika nor any application was invited by the eligible persons. The selection was held with respect to the vacancies accrued in the year 2010. All such eligible candidates working on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri were eligible for the said selection. The petitioner had submitted her documents for verification pursuant to the letter dated 9.8.2011 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) issued by District Program Officer, Pratapgarh.

It appears that the verification of documents were done thereafter and only thereafter the selection was held in the year 2014. Since on the date of submission of documents for verification the petitioner was having additional qualification of M.A. and she was also having additional qualification at the time of selection, as such, claim of petitioner for grant of additional marks for higher qualification could not have been rejected simply because the post of Mukhyasevika on which the selection was being held related to the year 2010. In case the selection was held in the year 2014 and for that purpose process for verification of documents etc. were started after the petitioner had obtained additional qualification of M.A. then the opposite parties should have considered the additional qualification of petitioner in the selection held for the post of Mukhyasevika and should have granted additional marks for having additional qualification of M.A., as prescribed under the Rules. The decision of the opposite parties for not granting additional marks to the petitioner, as such, was not justified. The petitioner was entitled to get additional marks for having additional qualification of M.A. for the post of Mukhyasevika."

9. In the letter dated 16.9.2010, there is no clause to the effect that respondent has to pass M.A. on or before 1.7.2010. Admittedly, letter dated 9.8.2011 was issued to the respondent to appear before the District Programme Officer, Pratapgarh along with the relevant documents. Thereafter, the selection for the post of Mukhyasevika was made in the year 2014, therefore, the Writ Court has rightly quashed the order impugned in the writ petition and directed the appellants to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for selection on the post of Mukhya Sevika giving her additional marks for having qualification of M.A.

10. Considering the aforesaid, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court.

11. The special appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Jaspreet Singh, J.)       (Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal, J.)
 
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
 
Ajit/-