Pramath Patnaik, J
1. In the captioned writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner on
the post of lady supervisor in Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka and further to quash memo dated 19.07.2010 whereby the respondent no. 2 issued
direction for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor without giving reservation to the extent of 3 % in the light of mandate of the provisions
enshrined in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995; and to declare that the respondents
have no power to deny the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of initial appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika the
petitioner had not completed the age of 18 years.
2. The factual matrix, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbari Sewika for Karanghati Centre
under Littipara Block on 02.03.1983. In the year 2007, an advertisement was published inviting application on the post of Lady Supervisor in Santhal
Pargana Division, in which,  25% quota was reserved to be filled-up amongst the Anganbari Sewikas. The petitioner, having the requisite
academic qualification of Graduation and having required work experience of Anganbari Sewika for at least 10 years, applied and appeared in the
examination conducted for the said post. It has further been averred that vide impugned memo dated 19.07.2010 several persons were directed to be
appointed except the petitioner. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner enquired the matter wherefrom she could know that she has been denied
appointment on the ground that she was below 18 years of age on the date, when she was appointed as Anganbari Sewika on 02.03.1983.
3. Heard Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar, A.C to learned G.P II for the respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the last selected candidate in general category has acquired only 142 marks and the petitioner has
acquired 126 marks. But the petitioner, who belongs to handicapped quota ought to have been given 3 % reservation in that category and she was
coming under the zone of consideration. It has further been submitted that no other candidate falling in that category has secured more marks than the
petitioner, hence the respondents are bound to select the petitioner as Lady Supervisor. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that as per Section 33 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 every establishment has
to appoint such percentage of vacancies not less than 3 % for persons or class of persons with disability. So far the issue of appointment as
Anganbari Sewika below the age of 18 years and consequent appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor is concerned, the same has been considered
in several judgments delivered by this Hon’ble Court and one of the leading decision is in the case of Baby Kumari Vs. The State of Jharkhand &
Another passed in W.P (S) No. 3810 of 2010, wherein the Hon’ble Court in unequivocal terms has enunciated that the reasons for denial of
appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lady Supervisor on the ground of appointment of petitioner on Anganbari Sewika below 18 years is not
sustainable.
5. As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time of selection for the post of Sevika, the petitioner was below the age
of 18 years, therefore, as per the direction contained in letter dated 26.03.2008 of the Government of Jharkhand, Social Welfare, Women and Child
Development Department, the petitioner is not eligible to be appointed on the post of Lady Supervisor. So far fulfillment of provision of giving 3 %
reservation for specially challenged persons is concerned, as per Guidelines of notification dated 7.11.2007, in case of nonavailability of suitable
candidate relaxation may be given in the standard fixed for the selections. Since the petitioner or other candidate falling in that category was not found
fit for the post in the question, no person was appointed in that category.Â
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal of documents and decision cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the
considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements:
 (I).Since appointment of the petitioner in the year 1983, she diligently served as Anganwari Sewika. Neither any objection was raised with regard to
her date of birth nor her appointment was ever held illegal by the State-authorities and she served with the department with full knowledge of the
authorities concerned regarding his date of birth and date of joining.
 (ii).In the year 2007, an advertisement was published inviting application for appointment on the post of “Lady Supervisorâ€, in which, 25 %
quota were reserved for Anganwari Sewika, who have served for at least 10 years and who possesses a degree of Graduation OR, who have
completed 15 years of Service and possesses matriculation degree. Besides that eligibility criteria, academic and experience, no other criteria was
there for selection on the post in question. Undoubtedly, the petitioner has fulfilled all these criteria but she was denied appointment on the ground that
she did not complete
18 years of age at the time of her appointment on the post of Anganbari Sewika, in support thereof, though in counter affidavit one letter dated
26.03.2008 has been annexed wherein it has been stated that if the sevika is found below 18 years of age at the time of appointment as Sevika, her
appointment shall be declared illegal. But, the question remains to be decided whether it is suffice to deny appointment of a candidate, who have
successfully served for more than two and half decades and no objection was raised ever before.
 (iii).Undoubtedly, the post of Lady Supervisor is altogether a different post from that the post of Anganwari Sewika. Further, it is not a promotional
post rather a totally new post, published through Public Advertisement. It is well settled principle of law, no new criteria can be added or omitted when
the selection process is over.
 (iv).Here, it would not be necessary to discuss more on the issue of reservation of 3 % for physically challenged persons, as in the advertisement
itself they have included the mandatory provision of law. Further, the respondents have denied appointment of the petitioner not on this ground rather
on a totally non est and untenable ground.
 (v).The same and similar issue, arising out of the same vacancy, another candidate knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3810 of
2010, which has been decided in favour of the writ petitioner and as per the statement made at bar, the State has not challenged the same in appeal.
Hence, the petitioner ought to have been given the benefit of parity.
7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the reason assigned by the respondents i.e since she was below
18 years of age at the time of appointment on the post of Anganwari Sewika, for not appointing the petitioner has no reason to sustain, accordingly the
same is quashed and the respondents are directed to take appropriate decision with regard to appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lady
Supervisor giving benefit of 3 % reservation, as enshrined in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1955 within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, without disturbing the positions of persons who have
already been appointed.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
