Manoj K. Tiwari, J
1. District Programme Officer, Uttarkashi issued an advertisement on 02.08.2010, whereby applications were invited from eligible persons for
appointment as Anganwari Karyakarti and Mini-Anganwari Karyakarti and one of the condition of eligibility was that a candidate should be resident of
the same Village/Tok/Majra/Ward, for which vacancy is advertised.
2. Petitioner as well as respondent No. 6 responded to the said advertisement and upon completion of selection process, tentative select list was issued
on 25.02.2010. Since petitioner was not included in the select list, therefore, she filed objection against the tentative select list contending that
respondent No. 6, who was selected, is not a resident of Bhainkuri Tok for which vacancy was advertised. Pursuant to the objection made by
petitioner, a report was called for from Tehsildar Bhainkuri, who, in his report stated that as many as four candidates, including respondent No. 6, are
resident of Bhankuri Tok. In view of the report submitted by Tehsildar, the objection filed by the petitioner was rejected and the select list was
finalized and respondent No. 6 was declared successful for the post of Mini-Anganwari Karyakarti for Anganwari Centre, Bhainkuri, District
Uttarkashi.
3. Against rejection of her objection, petitioner earlier filed WPSS No. 939 of 2011 and a coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ
petition vide order dated 27.07.2011 with a direction to District Magistrate to refer the matter to the appellate authority forthwith; with further direction
to the appellate authority to take a decision on petitioner’s representation within four weeks.
4. In terms of the order of this Court, appellate authority considered the matter and passed an order on 28.09.2011, whereby petitioner’s
representation was rejected. Petitioner challenged the decision taken by the appellate authority by filing another writ petition i.e. WPSS No. 1876 of
2011. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 21.12.2011 set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and remitted the matter
back to the appellate authority/District Programme Officer, Uttarkashi to decide the issue afresh, after giving personal hearing to the petitioner, within
a period of one month.
5. Again the matter was considered by the appellate authority who rejected claim of the petitioner vide order dated 22.02.2011, which is under
challenge in this writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by the appellate authority is unsustainable, inasmuch as, he has failed to
consider the fact that respondent No. 6 in her application form had mentioned name of Anganwari Centre as Kishanpur. He further submits that
Kishanpur is the name of the village, while the vacancy was in a Tok (hamlet) of the said village, namely, Bhainkuri Tok. This indicates that
respondent No. 6 was not a resident of Bhainkuri Tok. He further submits that the appellate authority has overlooked the extract of the family register
filed by the petitioner, in which name of Tok of respondent No. 6 is not mentioned and only name of the village is mentioned as Kishanpur.
7. Learned Brief Holder for the State submits that petitioner was given ample opportunity to produce evidence in support of her contention that
respondent No. 6 is not a resident of Bhainkuri Tok, however, petitioner could not produce any evidence. He submits that the question raised by the
petitioner is purely a question of fact and further that the authorities have afforded full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and only thereafter
recorded concurrent finding that respondent No. 6 is eligible, as she was resident of the same Tok for which vacancy was advertised.
8. The vacancy was advertised in respect of Bhainkuri Tok, therefore, respondent No. 6 cannot be treated as ineligible for appointment on the post of
Mini-Anganwari Karyakarti, merely because she had not mentioned the name of the Tok in her application. Thus, the first submission made on behalf
of the petitioner is unsustainable.
9. A photo copy of the said application is available on record as annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. A bare perusal of the said application would reveal
that respondent No. 6 had clearly mentioned in her declaration that she is resident of Bhainkuri Tok. The next submission made on behalf of the
petitioner is also without any substance. In the absence of any positive evidence that respondent No. 6 does not reside in Bhainkuri Tok of Village
Kishanpur, petitioner cannot succeed, merely on the basis of family register, in which name of the Tok is not mentioned.
10. Court can take judicial notice of the fact that family register is maintained by the Gram Pradhan at the village level, therefore, name of Tok is not
usually mentioned in family register. Based on the documents, relied upon by the petitioner, it cannot be interfered that respondent No. 6 is resident of
some other Tok.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby
dismissed.
