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 & 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.
Thereby the court observed that – “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.” Thereby the court allowed the writ petition and stated that- “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.”