One cannot be blamed for the delay in taking decision by the Appellate Committee: High Court of Uttarakhand.
Where petitioner had filed an objection against the tentative select list well within time, therefore, the delay, if any, in taking a decision on the said objection is not attributable to the petitioner. A single Judge bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, in the matter of Smt. Poonam Devi Vs. State of Uttarakhand &amp; others (Writ Petition (S/S) No. 680 of 2020), dealt with a matter where the petitioner filed a writ petition. In the present case, District Programme Officer, Child Welfare, Haridwar issued an advertisement on 26.11.2018, whereby applications were invited from eligible persons for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri. In the advertisement, there was a condition mentioned, that the condition should be a permanent resident of the concerned Village/Ward, where the appointment would be made. The petitioner applied against a vacancy in Ward No. 51, Mohall Ghosiyan, Dheerwali, Jawalapur, District Haridwar, as she was a permanent resident of the said Ward. Also, the petitioner being a widow was entitled to a preference for appointment. The Child Development Officer, Haridwar prepared a tentative select list whereby objections were invited in respect of the names of selected candidates. To this petitioner filed an objection stating that Km. Sajida Ansari was not a permanent resident of Ward No. 51, Mohalla Dheerwali, Ghosiyan-5, therefore, she is not eligible for an appointment. Further, it was found that the permanent residence certificate showing her to be a permanent resident of Mohalla Ghosiyan, was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Also, the Appellate Committee had disposed of the petitioner’s objection. But a perusal of the order indicated that the appellate Committee had taken cognizance passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar, whereby the petitioner’s permanent resident certificate was cancelled. The Appellate Committee declined the petitioner’s claim on the ground that more than 6 months had passed from the date of selection and thereby the selection process stood cancelled. and it was also stated that later a new advertisement would be issued for the post in question.
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL ON THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2021 HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ PetitionNo. 6820 BETWEEN: Smt. Poonam Devi ...Petitioner By Mr. Himanshu Pal Advocate) State of Uttarakhand & others. ....Respondents By Mr. N.S. Pundir Deputy Advocate General for the State of JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the parties. District Programme Officer Child Welfare Haridwar issued an advertisement on 26.11.2018 whereby applications were from eligible persons for appointment as Anganwadi Karyakatri. One of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement was that a candidate should be a permanent resident of the concerned Village Ward in which appointment was to be made. According to the petitioner she applied against a vacancy in Ward No. 51 Mohall Ghosiyan Dheerwali Jawalapur District Haridwar as she is a permanent resident of the said Ward. It is further her case that she being a widow is entitled for preference in appointment. the petitioner Child Development Officer Haridwar prepared a tentative select list on 10.01.2019 whereby objections were in respect of the names of selected candidates. One Km. Sajida Ansari D o late Abdul Kadeer was shown to be selected against the post in question. Pursuant to the said tentative select list petitioner filed an objection stating that Km. Sajida Ansari is not a permanent resident of Ward No. 51 Mohalla Dheerwali Ghosiyan 5 therefore she is not eligible for appointment. It transpires that the permanent resident certificate issued in favour of the selected candidate Ms. Sajida Ansari) showing her to be permanent resident of Mohalla Ghosiyan was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Haridwar vide order dated 19.02.2020. The Appellate Committee has disposed of petitioner’s objection vide order dated 30.05.2020 which is impugned in the writ petition. A perusal of the order dated 30.05.2020 indicates that the Appellate Committee has taken cognizance of the order dated 19.02.2020 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate Haridwar whereby permanent resident certificate issued in favour of Ms. Sajida Ansari was cancelled however the Appellate Committee has appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri on the ground that more than six months have elapsed from the date of selection and has provided that the earlier selection process stands cancelled and a new advertisement shall be issued for the post in question. The order passed by the Appellate Committee is unsustainable in the eyes of law for the simple reason that petitioner had filed objection against the tentative select list well within time therefore the delay if any in taking decision on the said objection is not attributable to the petitioner. In other words petitioner cannot be blamed for the delay in taking decision by the Appellate Committee therefore she could not have been denied the right to be considered for appointment merely because the period of more than six months has expired after the selection. After cancellation of the permanent resident certificate of Ms. Sajida Ansari she could not have been appointed as Anganwadi Karyakatri therefore petitioner had a right to be considered against the post in question. In such view of the matter the impugned order dated 30.05.2020 passed by Appellate Authority is quashed and the Writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider claim of the petitioner for appointment alongwith other eligible candidates as per the criteria laid down in the Government Policy as early as possible but not later than six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 