LexDIPITIMAYEE PARIDA versus STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 814 A DIPITIMAYEE PARIDA v. :x~- STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6158 of 2008) .... B OCTOBER 20, 2008 [S.8. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ] Se/Vice Law ~ ~ c Integrated Child Development Scheme - Clause 8(d) - Appointment of Angadwadi Worker- Eligibility criteria prescrib- ing, inter alia, three marks for a married woman - Candidate not married till last date for submitting application - Was awarded marks by Selection Committee at ·the time of viva voce on account of her being married - HELO: Not permis- D sible - Ordinarily, qualifications for recruitment are to be con- sidered on last date of filing of application - Selection Com- mittee was merely authorized to award marks for viva voce - It was not conferred with any power of relaxation - Stages for grant of marks having been fixed, one Committee could not ---r-- E usurp jurisdiction of the other - State had jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution to issue the circular dated 7.10.1998 laying down criteria for the recruitment - Constitu- tion of India, 1950 - Article 162 - Circular Letter dated 7. 10. 1998 issued by WECO Department of Government of F Orissa. Respondent no. 5 filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the recruitment of the appellant as an ~/ ',l Anganwadi worker, on the ground that the latter was not a married woman till the last date fixed for receipt of the G application for the post and, therefore, 3 marks allotted to her at the viva voce on account of her being married could not have been 'illlotted to her and consequently she was ~- not entitled to the appointment. The claim of respondent ~ no. 5 was that since she having secured more marks than H 814 DIPITIMAYEE PARIDA v. STATE OF ORISSA 815 & ORS. the appellant, was entitled to the appointment. The Single A Judge of the High court allowed the writ petition and the Division Bench dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by the appellant. In the instant appeal it was contended for the appel- 8 lant that the question whether a woman was married or not although not wholly irrelevant, but being not an es- sential qualification for appointment as an Anganwadi worker, the High Court committed a serious error in set- ting aside her appointment. c Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The matter relating to recruitment of Anganwadi Workers is not governed by any statute. Re- cruitments are made pursuant to the Integrated Child Development Scheme framed by the Central Government. D The State, therefore, while making recruitments in such projects, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India, may issue such guidelines and/ or circulars as it may seem fit and proper, and the same would be binding on all the functionaries working in terms E of the 'Scheme' including the Selection Committees con- stituted for recruitment of Anganwadi Worker. Validity of the Circular Letter dated 7 .10.1998 laying down the crite- ria for recruitment of Anganwadi Worker is not in ques- tion. The manner in which the marks are to be distributed F has been laid down in Clause 8 of the said circular letter. Sub-Clause (d) of Clause 8, inter alia, prescribed three marks to be granted if the candidate was a married woman. [para 8 and 9] [820-C-G] 1.2 The marks which have to be awarded in terms of G Clause 8 (a) to (e) were to be notified prior to holding of interview. It was for the competent Comm.ittee to award marks in terms of clause 8(a) to (e) ·of the Circular Letter dated 7.10.1998. The Selection Committee could not have done so as it was merely authorized to hold the viva-voce H ' 816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A test wherefor only 10 marks were specified. [para 9] [821- A; 821-D] j(- 1.3 When marks are fixed specifying the criteria in the rule, the same should be strictly followed. The Selec- tion Committee was not conferred with any power to grant 8 relaxation. Stages for grant of marks having bee.n fixed, one Committee could not usurp the jurisdiction of the other. If the marks allotted because of appellant's marita.I status are allowed to stand, then for all intent and purport )L • the mark.s awarded by the Interviewing Committe~ to the C appellant would be 12outof10, which was impermissible. Even otherwise, ordinarily the qualification or extra-quali- fication laid down for the recruitment should be consid- ered as on the last ·date for
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.