Rashmi Devi & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 9150 P&H

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064




                                                                  2023:PHHC:083064



       In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh


1.                           Civil Writ Petition No. 22871 of 2014 (O&M)


Rashmi Devi and Others
                                                                   ... Petitioner(s)

                                       Versus

State of Punjab and Others
                                                                ... Respondent(s)

2.                                       Civil Writ Petition No. 23504 of 2014


Nirmaljit Kaur and Others
                                                                   ... Petitioner(s)

                                       Versus

State of Punjab and Others
                                                                ... Respondent(s)

3.                             Civil Writ Petition No. 593 of 2015 (O&M)


Sheela Devi and Others
                                                                   ... Petitioner(s)

                                       Versus

State of Punjab and Others
                                                                ... Respondent(s)

4.                                        Civil Writ Petition No. 1177 of 2015


Gagandeep Kaur
                                                                   ... Petitioner(s)

                                       Versus

State of Punjab and Others
                                                                ... Respondent(s)

                                       AND



                              1 of 9
           ::: Downloaded on - 06-07-2023 22:07:38 :::
                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064




                                                                   2023:PHHC:083064
Civil Writ Petition No. 22871 of 2014 (O&M)                                   2
And Other Connected Cases



5.                                        Civil Writ Petition No. 26686 of 2015


Parveen Rani
                                                                    ... Petitioner(s)

                                        Versus

State of Punjab and Others
                                                                 ... Respondent(s)

                         Reserved On: 11.05.2023
                        Pronounced On: 03.07.2023

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:     Mr. G.S.Bal, Senior Advocate
             with Mr. H.S.Saggu and Mr. Dilshad S. Gill, Advocates
             for the petitioner(s) (In CWP-22871-2014, CWP-23504-2014
             and CWP-593-2015).

             Mr. Balbir Kumar Saini, Advocate
             for Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate
             for the petitioner (In CWP-26686-2015).

             Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, Senior Deputy Advocate General,
             Punjab.

             Mr. Dushyant Jog, Advocate
             for Mr. T.V.S.Lehal, Advocate
             for the respondent No.126 (In CWP-23504-2014).

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. With the consent of the learned counsel representing the parties,

a batch of five connected writ petitions is being disposed of by a common

order. For facility, the facts are being noticed from the lead case i.e. Civil

Writ Petition No. 22871 of 2014.

2. The petitioners are working as Anganwari Workers under the

Integrated Child Development Scheme of the Central Government started in

the year 1975. They claimed to be belonging to the general category. They

2 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064

2023:PHHC:083064

And Other Connected Cases

are praying for the issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the

select list issued by the respondent No.2 on 03.11.2014 for appointment of

the Anganwari Supervisors out of the Anganwari Workers working in the

department while praying for the directions to the respondent No.1 and 2 to

redraw the select list.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed in order to

comprehend the issue involved in the present case. On 23.12.2010, the

Department of Social Security and Women and Child Development, Punjab,

issued the recruitment notice inviting the applications for the appointment of

286 Anganwari Supervisors out of the Anganwari Workers working in the

Anganwari Centres functioning under the department. It was notified that the

number of the posts can be increased or decreased and the selection will be

made to the extent of 50% from amongst the Anganwari Workers having

educational qualification as graduate, whereas, 50% from amongst the

Anganwari Workers having educational qualification of Matriculation. The

Note-I reads as under:-

"1. The selection shall be made in accordance with the

rules/regulations of Punjab Government and reservation

quota will be given to each category according to the

percentage prescribed by the Government."

4. The services of the Anganwari Workers are regulated by the

Punjab Social Security and Development of Women and Children (Group

'C') Non-Ministerial Service Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the

2001 Rules"). As per Appendix "A" , there were 723 posts of the Supervisor.

As per the stand of the State, now the total posts are 963. The item No. 13 3 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064

2023:PHHC:083064

And Other Connected Cases

of Appendix "B" reads as under:-

1.       2.          3.           4.                  5.                          6.
13. Supervisor Twenty five Seventy five (i)   Should       be a (i) Out of seventy
               per cent    per cent     Graduate       from       a five per cent of
                                        recognized university promotion            quota,

or institution in any of thirty five per cent the subjects viz. Home posts of the Science, Nutrition, Supervisors will be Child Development, filled up by selection Psychology, from amongst the Economics, Social Anganwadi Workers Work or Sociology who are Matriculates OR from a recognized university or

(ii) Should be a institution and who Graduate from have an experience recognized university of working as such or institution and for a minimum should have three years period of eight years;

                                        experience      as      Bal
                                        Sewaka       or      Gram (ii) Thirty five per
                                        Sewaka or Angandwadi cent by selection
                                        Workers; and                from amongst the
                                                                    Anganwadi Workers,
                                        (iii)    Should       have who are Graduates
                                        knowledge of Punjabi from a recognized
                                        language              upto University          or

Matriculation Standard. institution and who have an experience Note: The female of working as such employees who have for a minimum been retrenched from a period of three years;

                                        department       of     the and
                                        Punjab Government or

a Board, Corporation or (iii) Five per cent by Public Sector promotion amongst Undertakings of the the Bal Sewakas or Punjabv Government Greh Sewakas, who and who have worked have an experience therein for a minimum of working as such period of two years in for a minimum connection with any period of eight years.

                                        scheme relating to the
                                        Welfare of Women and
                                        Children,     shall      be
                                        appointed on priority
                                        basis      by       giving
                                        relaxation in age upto a
                                        maximum period of
                                        five years.

5. On the careful reading of the aforesaid item No. 13 of Appendix

"B", it is evident that out of the total sanctioned strength of the posts, 75% 4 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064

2023:PHHC:083064

And Other Connected Cases

of the posts are to be filled up by way of promotion. Clause (i) and (ii) of

Column No. 6 provide that 35% of the posts of the Supervisors will be filled

up by way of selection each from amongst the Anganwari Workers having

educational qualification as matriculation and graduation, whereas 5% of the

posts are to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Bal Sewaks

and Greh Sewaks.

6. In substance, the grievance of the petitioners is that while

carrying out the selection, only seven Anganwari Workers from the general

category have been selected. While filing the reply, the respondents have

stated that the backlog of the vacancies was sought to be filled up, as a result

of which only seven posts could be given to the general category candidates.

The break-up given in Annexure R1 is extracted as under:-

Category Required Filled Vacant To be Filled Posts Posts

7. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and

with their able assistance, perused the synopsis filed by the learned senior

counsel representing the petitioners and the paper-book.

8. In substance, the learned counsel representing the petitioners,

while filing the synopsis, has reiterated the following contentions as noticed

in para No. 9 and 10 of the synopsis, which read as under:-

5 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064

2023:PHHC:083064

And Other Connected Cases

"9. That a bare perusal of statistical data regarding backlog

vacancies given by respondents above shows that even in those

categories, where reservation is horizontal, backlog vacancies

are stated to have been carried forward and filled to the

detriment of general category candidates. The backlog

vacancies in respect of SC and BC category only could be

carried forward under the Rules and if 53+25=78 vacancies

meant for SC and BC are taken out of total of 145 posts, 145-78

= 87 posts are required to be filled up in total and out of these

87-2 = 43 posts are liable to be filled from general category

candidates.

10. That otherwise also a bare perusal of the advertisement-

Annexure P-1 does not show that there were any backlog

vacancies. But assuming for the sake of argument and on the

basis of written statement filed by the respondents that there

was some backlog in respect of SC and BC categories, only 78

carried forward vacancies out of 145 posts could be filled up as

backlog vacancies and out of remaining 87 posts only 50%

could be kept reserved for the reserve categories. Thus, the

action of the respondents in filling up only 7 general category

posts is patently an illegal and arbitrary action and thus the

selection list-Annexure P-9 to that extent is liable to be set

aside. Under these circumstances the above noted writ petition

is liable to be allowed as prayed for."

9. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has produced the 6 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064

2023:PHHC:083064

And Other Connected Cases

roster register to bring home their point that the selection list has been

prepared in accordance with the rules.

10. While explaining, the learned State counsel has submitted that

out of 963 sanctioned posts, 241 have to be filled through the direct

recruitment, whereas 5% posts are to be filled from amongst the Bal Sewaks

and Greh Sewaks. Out of the remaining 70% of the cadre strength, which

comes to 674, amongst the graduates and matriculates, the division has to be

in the ratio of 50:50. Hence, each category gets 337 posts. It has been

pointed out that as per the reservation policy of the State, 169 posts are

required to be filled from the open/general category, whereas 162 posts have

already been filled. There were only seven vacant vacancies from the open

category which have been filled by the impugned selection list.

11. As already noticed, the primary argument of the learned senior

counsel representing the petitioners is to the effect that the backlog

vacancies only with respect to the categories of the Scheduled Castes and

Backward Class could be carried forward and the remaining are required to

be filled up in the ratio of 50:50 amongst the graduate and matriculate

Anganwadi Workers. The learned counsel relies upon the judgment passed in

Rajinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab and Others 2012 (4) RSJ 715. While

referring to para 5 of the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel contends

that the Division Bench has held that there cannot be any carrying forward

of the vacancies apart from the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste

and Backward Class categories. This Court has carefully read the judgment.

In the aforesaid case, the petitioner was a differently abled person. The

petitioner was aggrieved of a discriminatory provision to grant 5% 7 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064

2023:PHHC:083064

And Other Connected Cases

concessions to the differently abled person as opposed to the 10% relaxation

provided to the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Backward

Class categories which was declared to be discriminatory and the mandate

was issued directing the respondent to grant 10% relaxation to a differently

abled person. With highest respect, the aforesaid judgment is not applicable

to the facts of the present case.

12. The next judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel

representing the petitioner is Kulwant Kumar Kalson and Others v. State of

Haryana and Others 2015 (3) SCT 730. In the aforesaid judgment, the

dispute as to assignment of the inter-se seniority of the officers in the

Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) in three batches of the direct

recruitment was in dispute. As is evident, this judgment is not relating to fill

up the backlog vacancies. Hence, the aforesaid judgment is also not

applicable to the facts of the present case.

13. The next judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel

representing the petitioners is in Anupal Singh and Others v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others (2020)2 SCC 173. In that case, the judgment passed by

the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad was challenged before the

Supreme Court. After the issuance of the recruitment notice, the office

memorandum was issued by the State to rectify the wrong calculation and

revised requisition of the number of vacancies in different categories. The

High Court allowed the writ petition while holding that it amounts to

changing the rules of game in the middle of the selection process. The

Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court and held that such

rectification is not permissible. With greatest respect, the aforesaid 8 of 9

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064

2023:PHHC:083064

And Other Connected Cases

judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

14. As is evident from the affidavit filed by the State, the

department has filled up the backlog vacancies in order to rectify the

imbalance to fulfill the requirements of the reservation policy of the State.

Hence, the question of carrying forward the horizontally reserved vacancies

does not arise in the present case.

15. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and the positive stand

of the State that there was a backlog reserved vacancies, this Court does not

find it appropriate to quash the selection list which was finalized in the year

2010. Consequently, all the writ petitions are dismissed.

16. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in all the writ

petitions, shall stand disposed of.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 03, 2023 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083064

9 of 9