Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/543/2019 on 27 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
REVIEW APPLICATION (MCC NO. 523 OF 2019)
In
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 543 OF 2019
27th JULY, 2022
Between:
Neelam Devi ...... Applicant / Appellant
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief
Holder for the State
: Mr. Prashant Khanna, learned
counsel for respondent No. 4
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The appellant seeks review of the judgment
dated 28.05.2019, rendered by, the then Hon'ble
Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh
Ranganathan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S. Dhanik,
2
whereby the present Special Appeal, bearing No. 543
of 2019, was dismissed by the Division Bench.
2) The case of the appellant was that one
Meena Devi was appointed against the post of
Aaganwari Worker for the Aaganwari Center-Chaper,
District Rudraprayag, in response to an advertisement
published on 15.12.2011, under the BPL category.
The appellant was placed at serial No. 1 on the wait
list. The appellant raised an objection that Meena
Devi did not belong to the BPL category. That
objection was not looked at, and Meena Devi was
appointed to the said post on 12.12.2012.
3) Pertinently, the appellant did not approach
the Court at that point of time. Clearly, the appellant
accepted the appointment of Meena Devi to the said
post. It appears that much later, on a report being
made on 02.02.2016 by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, it was found that the appointment of
Meena Devi was illegal, and she was asked to resign
from her post. On 29.08.2016, Meena Devi resigned.
The respondent then issued another advertisement on
08.10.2016, wherein the appellant also participated,
but was unsuccessful. The claim of the appellant was
3
that since Meena Devi was found to be disqualified,
the appellant being at serial No. 1 on the wait list,
should have been offered the post. The Division
Bench rejected this submission of the appellant by
observing in para 9, as follows:
"9. Empanelment of a candidate, and
inclusion of his name in the wait list, does not mean
that the empanelled candidate should invariably be
appointed to the post. It is always open to the
respondents, instead, to cancel the selection
process, and conduct selections afresh. Since the
life of the panel (wait list) was for a period of only
six months, and the said period expired in the year
2012 itself, resignation of Mrs. Meena Devi in the
year 2016 could only have resulted in a fresh
selection process being undertaken by the
respondents. They cannot be faulted for not giving
effect to the earlier process of selection held in the
year 2011, and in not appointing a candidate from
the wait list more than four years after the life of the
panel had expired. In any event, the appellant-writ
petitioner having submitted an application on
15.11.2016, pursuant to the advertisement dated
08.10.2016, a day before she filed this writ petition
on 16.11.2016, and having participated in the
selection process thereafter, cannot be heard to
contend that a fresh advertisement should not have
been issued, and a fresh selection process should
not have been undertaken."
4) Once again, the appellant is seeking to re-
argue the matter by complaining that the post should
4
be offered to her, since Meena Devi was found to be
disqualified.
5) We find absolutely no merit in this
submission. The Division Bench has already rejected
the submission by observing that the life of the wait
list panel is only for six months, and after several
years, upon resignation of Meena Devi, the post could
not be offered to the appellant. In addition to the
reason given by the Division Bench, we also find that
the appellant slept over her rights and did not
approach the Court when Meena Devi was given the
appointment in the year 2012. On that ground as
well, by her conduct, she disentitled herself from
seeking any relief.
6) We find no merit in the present review
petition. The same is, hereby, dismissed.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 27th JULY, 2022
Negi
