- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Smt. Madhuri And Others v. State Of U.P And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The State Government issued orders and detailed procedures for the recruitment of Aanganbari Sahayika and Aanganbari Karyakatri starting from 16.12.2003, with further circulars in 2006. The Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar, U.P., designated the appointing authority, and subsequently, an advertisement for recruitment was published on 21.8.2007 by the District Programme Officer. Allegations of irregularities and corruption in the selection process surfaced, supported by newspaper reports and a complaint by a reporter, leading to a directive for lodging an F.I.R. against involved officers. The Chief Development Officer appointed Smt. Shahnaz Parveen as a member of all eight Selection Committees for the recruitment process in Banda district. The petitioners alleged lack of transparency, demand for money for appointments, and challenged the composition of the Selection Committees, praying for mandamus directions to ensure fair recruitment and removal of Smt. Shahnaz Parveen from the committees. The Court heard arguments and considered the matter.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the selection process for appointment of Aanganbari Sahayika and Aanganbari Karyakatri was conducted with transparency and in accordance with the State Government's prescribed procedures.
- Whether Smt. Shahnaz Parveen's appointment to all eight Selection Committees was justified and lawful.
- Whether the Court should issue mandamus directions to constitute a new Selection Committee and publish the recruitment process to ensure fairness.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- There is no hope of fair selection as money was demanded for appointments.
- The selection committees lack transparency and do not follow the prescribed methods.
- There is no justification for appointing Smt. Shahnaz Parveen to all eight Selection Committees.
- Prayed for mandamus to constitute sincere and honest Selection Committees and remove Smt. Shahnaz Parveen from the committees.
Respondents' Position (as inferred from Court's reasoning)
- The detailed procedure for recruitment has been published by the State Government and followed.
- No proof was produced to substantiate allegations of corruption or money demands.
- Appointment of Smt. Shahnaz Parveen as a member of the Selection Committees is in accordance with Clause 6 of the guidelines.
- Having a common member in all committees could ensure uniformity in the selection process.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court observed that the State Government had issued detailed guidelines and procedures for recruitment which were appended to the petition. The Court noted that the petitioners’ allegations of corruption and demand for money were supported only by newspaper reports and unsubstantiated claims without any concrete proof. The Court emphasized that newspaper reports cannot be relied upon for authenticity in judicial proceedings. The Commissioner had already initiated an inquiry by directing an F.I.R. against the officials involved, and the petitioner had the opportunity to take action if money was demanded. The Court also pointed out that none of the Selection Committee members were made parties to the petition, thus their integrity could not be presumed questionable. Regarding the appointment of Smt. Shahnaz Parveen to all eight Selection Committees, the Court referred to the guidelines which authorized such nomination and rejected the petitioner’s contention as incorrect. The Court further reasoned that having a common member could promote uniformity in the selection process. Consequently, the Court found the petition premature and lacking sufficient grounds for interference at this stage.
Holding and Implications
The Court's final decision was to DISMISS the writ petition.
The decision directly affects the parties by denying relief to the petitioners and upholding the existing recruitment process and committee composition. No new precedent was established by this ruling.
Rakesh Tiwari, J.:— Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. The State Government issued Government Order for appointment of Aanganbari Sahayika and Aanganbari Karyakatri on 16.12.2003, a detailed procedure was published for recruitment of Aanganbari Karyakatri and Aanganbari Sahayika. Another Circular Order dated 12.1.2006 was also published by the State Government giving details of the programme for recruitment of Aanganbari Sahayika and Aanganbari Karyakatri.
3. Pursuant to thereof, Director, Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pustahar, U.P Lucknow issued letter dated 24.2.2006 appended as Annexure-3 to this writ petition, by which it has been informed that Bal Vikas Evam Pariyojana Adhikari would be the appointing authority of Aanganbari Sahayika and Aanganbari Karyakatri.
4. Consequently, an advertisement was published by District Programme Officer, respondent No. 4, in two Hindi Daily Newspapers namely ‘Sri India’ and ‘Amar Ujala’ on 21.8.2007 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment of Aanganbari Sahayika and Aanganbari Karyakatri.
5. It appears that certain irregularities and manipulation had been reported in the selection process. These irregularities were brought to the notice of the Member who also heard alleged tape recorded dealings of corruption in selection process. A news item to this effect was also published in the daily newspaper ‘Hindustan’ dated 15.9.2007 and daily newspaper ‘Dainik Jagaran’ dated 15.9.2007 The photostat copy of the newspaper clippings in this regard have been appended as Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition.
6. A complaint also appears to have been made by Dr. Santosh Kumar Shukla, a Reporter of Dainik Jagran, to the Commissioner, Chitrakut Dham Mandal, Banda, on 14.9.2007 After considering the CD. and other relevant documents, the Commissioner, Chitrakut Dham Mandal, Banda directed the Superintendent of Police, Banda to lodge an F.I.R against the Officers involved in the aforesaid corrupt practice of appointment of Aanganbari Sahayika and Aanganbari Karyakatri.
7. The Chief Development Officer, Banda, then appears to have published a programme with regard to selection of Aanganbari Sahayika and Karyakatri in different Blocks and one Smt. Shahnaz Parveen was made Member in all of the Selection Committees for selection in the eight projects in Nagar Palika/Panchayat Projects and in rural areas projects.
8. It has been specifically alleged that Smt. Shahnaz Parveen is dealing the matter of selection and appointment of Aanganbari Sahayika and Karyakatri.
9. In paragraphs 13 and 15 of the writ petition it has been alleged that:—
“13. That the petitioners have no hope to be selected on their respective post on account of facts that they have been asked to deposit money for here appointment.
15. That in the selection committee there is no transparency and also there is no method specified by the respondents in the aforesaid selection. Such selection is contrary to the provisions published by the State Government.”
10. The Counsel for the petitioner states that there is no justification for appointing Smt. Shahnaz Parveen in all the eight Selection Boards and as such there is no hope of fair and proper selection of Aanganbari Karyakatri and Aanganbari Sahayika's and though the selection in the project of Banda have been postponed, it is prayed that:
“a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to constitute selection consisting of sincere and honest officers in the appointment of Aanganbari Sahayika and karyakatri in district Banda and issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to publish the process of recruitment and method in he appointment of Aanganbari Karyakatri and Sahayika. It is also prayed that a further mandamus may also be issued directing the respondents to remove Smt. Shahnavaz Parveen from selection committee in the appointment of Aanganbarui Karyakatri and Sahayika.”
11. From the argument advanced by the Counsel for the petitioner it appears that a detailed procedure for recruitment of Aanganbari Karyakatri and Aanganbari Sahayika has been provided by the State Government. It cannot be presumed at this stage that the Selection Committee, which has been constituted does not consist of sincere and honest officer for the appointment of Aanganbari Karyatri and Aanganbari Sahaiyka. This assumption by the petitioner aforesaid is premature as the Selection Committee has already been constituted. Though a allegation has been made by the petitioner on the basis of Newspaper reports and it has also been averred that money was demanded from her but there is no proof produced before this Court in this regard. Newspaper reports cannot be relied upon by Courts for their authenticity. The Commissioner has already directed to lodge an F.I.R against the officials dealing in corrupt practices. If money has been demanded from the petitioner, she could also have taken action by getting that person caught red handed. It may be noted that none of the Members of the Selection Committee have been arrayed as respondent by name and a writ sought against them. It cannot be presumed that they are not in the circumstances honest and sincere Member.
12. As regards the second prayer, it is apparent that the State Government has given detailed procedure provided guidelines and instructions regarding procedure, appointment and constitution of Selection Committee dated 16.12.2003, which is appended as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. These guidelines for selection of Aanganbari Karyakatri and Aaganbari Sahaiyka for appointment, selection process in the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Karyakjram are detailed and if according to the petitioner some detail is lacking he may bring the same to the notice of the State Government. However, what is lacking in these guidelines has also not been brought to the notice of this Court.
13. In so far as the third prayer is concerned, the petitioner has prayed for removal of Smt. Shahnavaz Parveen from all the eight Selection Committees. As stated earlier, no allegation has been made against her and only allegation is that money was demanded for appointment of the petitioner without disclosing the name of the person and making him/her party in the writ petition.
14. It may be noted that Clause 6 of the detailed guidelines provide that the Zila Karyakram Adhikari would nominate the Mukhya Sewika of another Bal Vikas Pariyojna from the minority to be a Member of the selection committee.
15. The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Shahnavaz Parveen is not eligible for being appointed as member of Selection Committee is therefore not correct. Their only objection is that she is Member of all the eight Selection Committees as such they apprehend that selections made by the Selection Committee would not be fair. This presumption cannot be drawn in absence of any proof. If there is any illegality, the same can be challenged before appropriate forum. There is another aspect to this argument that if a person is common in all the eight Selection Committees, it will ensure uniformity in the selection process.
16. In view of the above, writ petition appears to be premature. No case for interference is made out at this stage. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
17. No order as to costs.
Petition Dismissed.
Alert