1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-State.
2 Petitioner, along with others, has participated in the selection process for selection of Angan Bari Sevika for the Centre in question. Petitioner’s
case is that she was at Serial No
3 in the merit list. The first candidate did not appear. It is submitted that the second candidate suffered from disqualification in terms of Clause 6 of the
Guidelines of 2016. The disqualification being relied upon by the petitioner’s counsel is as follows:
“ - / 12000/- ( ) .
/ / / /
। /
।â€
3 The fact has been considered by the District Magistrate. Taking note of the fact that the father-in-law of the second empanelled candidate, namely
Anjana Kumari was not a Government servant and he was only discharging his duties on contractual basis in the Special Auxiliary Police, the District
Magistrate has held that the disqualification under Clause 6 of the Guidelines of 2016 is not attracted in the case of the private Respondent.
4 From bare reading of the disqualification Clause, it is apparent that the same contemplates disqualification when husband/father-in-law of the
applicant is in Government employment and the same does not speak of any disqualification in respect of contractual employment.
5 Conclusion of the District Magistrate does not require any interference.
6 Writ petition is dismissed.
