Allahabad High Court
Urvashi Tiwari And 70 Others vs State Of U P And 4 Others on 22 January, 2021
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13709 of 2018
Petitioner :- Urvashi Tiwari And 70 Others
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Pleadings in the present case have been exchanged between the parties.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 7.5.2018 and further seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioners in pursuance to the selection held on 8.11.2011 for the post of Anganbari karyakatri and Sahayika in District Gorakhpur.
By the impugned order dated 7.5.2018, the claim of the petitioners herein for appointment on the post of Anganbari Karyakatri has been rejected on the ground that in the light of the Government Order dated 4.9.2012, their names were not forwarded by the Selection Committee for approval and in view of judgment of this Court passed in Gyan Wati v. State of U.P. through Secretary and Others; Writ A No. 11551 of 2013 decided on 26.8.2013, the Selection Committee becomes functus officio and, therefore, second list which was not forwarded for approval cannot be considered for the purposes of granting appointment.
Challenging the same, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since second list was prepared by the Selection Committee, therefore, it cannot be said that the direction issued in case of Gyan Wati (supra) would run contrary to the interest of the petitioners. He submits that since the second list was prepared in respect of the petitioners, therefore, it cannot be said that the Committee has become functus officio as per the judgment rendered in Gyan Wati and claim of the petitioners for appointment has incorrectly been rejected. He has also placed reliance on the judgment of Gyan Wati. Attention was specifically drawn to paragraph 21 of the said judgment.
Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that in the light of the observations made in paragraph 21 of the judgment rendered in Gyan Wati (Supra), only the list consisting the names of 73 Anganbari Karyakatri and 72 Sahayika had been sent to the District Magistrate for approval and the same was saved by the judgment of Gyan Wati. Insofar as the petitioners are concerned, whose names are appearing in the second list consisting of 67 Anganbari Karyakatri and 75 Sahayika, which were not sent for approval to the District Magistrate, in the light of observations made in the judgment of Gyan Wati, the Selection Committee becomes functus officio and, therefore, their names cannot be considered for fresh selection as the Court has not clearly struck down the last paragraph of Government Order dated 4.9.2012 but interpreted in a reasonable manner so as to protect the interest of the selected candidates, whose names have been forwarded for approval and the names which were not sent approval, they were not saved by the aforesaid judgment.
I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to take note of paragraph 21 and 24 of the aforesaid judgment which are quoted herein as under:
"21. It is true that in the present case, validity of last para of G.O. dated 04.09.2012 in so far as it covers certain cases of earlier vacancies, has not been challenged. But, that will not help the respondents in any manner, for the reason that this Court is not striking down the last paragraph of G.O. dated 04.09.2012, but a reasonable plain reading thereof and also the legal exposition of law as discussed above, is sufficient to make its construction in the manner, that, it shall operate only in those cases where selection has not been finalized upto the stage of preparation of select list and submitted to the District Magistrate, rendering the selection committee functus officio. Approval of District Magistrate would only make the way clear to Zila Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari to proceed to make appointment but approval of District Magistrate as such, will not empower selection committee to treat it as continuing. Since this court is making a purposive reasonable construction of the G.O. dated 04.09.2012, and not striking it down, the factum that the petitioner has not challenged its validity, will be of no help to the respondents.
24. Be that as it may, since the law is well settled that vacancies occurring earlier should be filed in by the procedure laid down under the statute, operating at the time of occurrence of vacancies, G.O. dated 04.09.2012, need not be quashed to the extent it provides in the last para. Considering prayer (b), the respondents need be directed to consider the matter of appointment on the post of Angan Bari Karyakartri at village panchayat Sajeti, Ghatampur Block, district Kanpur Nagar in the light of selection made according to procedure laid down, applicable at the time of occurrence of vacancy, without being influenced by any subsequent G.O., laying down different procedure or method and the discussion made above."
(emphasis supplied)
A perusal of list dated 11.4.2012, copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition, clearly indicates that names of only 73 Anganbari Karyakatri and 43 Sahayika were sent as selected candidates. The last paragraph of the letter dated 11.4.2012 clearly indicates that names of only 73 Anganbari Karyakatri and 43 Sahaiyka were sent for approval to the District Magistrate. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, in view of the judgment of Gyan Wati (supra) and the letter dated 11.4.2012, the District Magistrate has rightly held that remaining name of the candidates were not sent for approval, therefore, the Selection Committee has become functus officio and as such rest of the names cannot be considered for grant of appointment.
I do not find any legal infirmity in the order impugned herein. The petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021
Kuldeep
