Rajasthan High Court
Shamma Bano Wife Of Arif Mohammed vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 February, 2023
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023/RJJP/001203]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16360/2022
Shamma Bano Wife Of Arif Mohammed, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Nimeda, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Women
And Child Development Department, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Director And Joint Secretary Administration, Child
Development Services, State Of Rajasthan Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Commissioner, Samekit Bal Vikas Services, Directorate,
Samekit Bal Vikas Services, 2, Jalpath, Gandhi Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Dy. Director, Women And Child Development Department,
Jaipur Rural (Raj.)
5. Child Development Project Officer, Women And Child
Development Department, Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Smt. Nirmala Bairwa, Posted As Anganbari Worker At
Anganbari Centre Nimeda-II, Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Vaishnav on behalf of
Mr. Kuldeep Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
01/02/2023
1. By way of instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the
appointment of respondent No.6 as Anganwari Worker in
Anganwari Center, Nimeda-II, Phagi, District Jaipur.
2. Having heard counsel for petitioner and from perusal of
record, it transpires that petitioner and private respondent No.6
both participated in the recruitment process for the post of
Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Center, Nimeda-II and both
secured equal 9 marks. According to the circular of Directorate of
[2023/RJJP/001203] (2 of 3) [CW-16360/2022]
Women and Child Development dated 19.8.2021, as per point
No.3 it is provided that in case of acquiring equal marks by two
similarly situated candidates, the candidate who is higher in age
would be selected. It is not in dispute that petitioner is lower in
age than private respondent No.6 and therefore, respondent No.6
has been given appointment.
3. Counsel for petitioner is not in a position to disclose the
actual date of appointment, however, after appointment of
respondent No.6 as Anganwari Worker petitioner submitted a
complaint/representation dated 23.2.2022 that petitioner resides
within 100 meters from the Anganwari Center and therefore, she
would be given preference. Thereafter, petitioner filed an appeal
before Appellate Authority and simultaneously filed SBCWP
No.9585/22 before the High Court, which was disposed of vide
order dated 26.7.2022 with direction to decide her appeal. Appeal
filed by petitioner has been decided vide order dated 28.9.2022.
The Appellate Authority has observed that as per requirement,
candidate should be resided within the radius of 3 Kms from
Anganwari Center and also that petitioner is undeniably lower in
age than respondent No.6, therefore, as per circular dated
19.8.2021, respondent No.6 has given appointment which is legal
and valid. Further it was also observed that respondent No.6 has
been given training as well.
4. Taking into consideration fact findings recorded by the
Appellate Authority in the impugned order dated 28.9.2022 as also
the fact that petitioner is undisputedly lower in age than private
respondent No.6 and both secured equal marks, this Court does
[2023/RJJP/001203] (3 of 3) [CW-16360/2022]
not find any reason to interfere with the appointment of
respondent No.6 which has been affirmed by the Appellate
Authority.
5. As a result, the writ petition is devoid of merits and same is
hereby dismissed.
6. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, also
stand disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
NITIN /51
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
