AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shishir Kumar, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the appointment of respondent no. 7 on the post of Anganbari Karyakartri dated 310308. On the basis of selection process respondent no. 7 was appointed as Anganbari Karyakartri on contract basis and on the basis of honorarium clearly indicating therein that an amount of Rs. 1,000/ per month will be paid and no service regulation will be applicable. This being a contract can be terminated at any point of time.
It appears that the petitioner who was one of the applicants made a complaint to the District Magistrate regarding appointment of respondent no. 7 on the ground that she has been given appointment on the basis of forged certificate as she does not belong to the village from where she has been considered for appointment.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent State. A specific averment has been made in para15 of the counter affidavit that on the basis of complaint the SubDivisional Magistrate has inquired into the matter and it has been found that the appointment of respondent no.7 has been made in accordance with law and according to merit. The allegation regarding forged certificate and other complaints made by the petitioner has been found false. A specific averments has been made that she has rightly been appointed according to merit. Further submission has been made that it is an appointment for a period of one year and that Has already expired on 31032009.
In view of the aforesaid fact and submissions by the learned Standing Counsel no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.