[2025:RJ-JP:33653] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18047/2022 Premwati W/o Shri Ramesh Saini, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Raut, Post Hadiya, Tehsil Mahwa, Distrit Dausa (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Women And Child Development Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director Cum Joint Secretary, Integrated Child Development Services, 2, Jal Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. 3. Dy. Director, Women And Child Development Department, Dausa 4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa 5. Child Development And Project Officer, Mahwa, District Dausa ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Goourav Dhiwan Mr. Rohit Sharma Ms. Nandini Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akash Gaur, Dy.G.C HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 25/08/2025 1. Although, the matter is listed today on application No. 2/2022 filed on behalf of respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte interim order dated 06.12.2022, however with consent of parties, arguments on the main writ petition were heard finally. 2. It is stated that the respondents initiated process of the appointment on the post of Anganbari Karyakarta at Aanganbari [2025:RJ-JP:33653] (2 of 3) [CW-18047/2022] Kendra Raut-I, Gram Panchayat Rout Hadiya, Panchayat Samiti Mahawa, District Dausa. However, despite selection, instead of offering petitioner appointment pursuant to her selection, the respondents initiated fresh process vide advertisement No. 01/2022 dated 14.11.2022, which has seriously prejudiced the rights of the petitioner pursuant to her selection in the earlier process. Hence a prayer has been made by the petitioner that by canceling the fresh initiation of process, appointment may be given to the petitioner on the post of Anganbari Karyakarta. 3. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents, in which it was mentioned that earlier, provision was there in the respondent-Department to continue Anganbari Karyakarta only up to the age of 60 years, however, vide order dated 19.08.2021 issued by the Director-cum-Joint Secretary, Integrated Child Development Services Rajsthan Jaipur, the age of superannuation of Anganbari Karyakarta was extended from 60 years to 61 years. Consequently, for a further period of one year even after completion of age of 60 years by the earlier Anganbari Karyakarta, there was no requirement of fresh appointments. However, in bonfide ignorance of aforesaid circular dated 19.08.2021, appointment process in question was wrongly initiated at the Anganbari Kendra. When such mistake came to the knowledge of the authorities, the earlier process, in which the petitioner was erroneously selected, without there being any requirement, of fresh recruitment was canceled vide order dated 09.03.2022. 4. After cancellation of the earlier process and after completion of age of 61 years of earlier Anganbari Karyakarta, [2025:RJ-JP:33653] (3 of 3) [CW-18047/2022] vide advertisement dated 14.11.2022, fresh process was initiated, in which there was no illegality whatsoever. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 6. It is a matter of fact that on account of and in increasing maximum age of continuation of Anganbari Karyakarta at a particular centre, the process earlier initiated vide advertisement dated 15.11.2021 was canceled by the Child Development Project Officer, Mahawa, Dausa vide order dated 09.03.2022. Petitioner was allegedly selected pursuant to aforesaid canceled process earlier initiated through advertisement dated 15.11.2021. However, the order of cancellation of earlier process dated 09.03.2022 was never challenged by the petitioner. 7. The impugned advertisement dated 14.11.2022 is in consequence of earlier cancellation of process vide order dated 09.03.2022. No prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as she was also free to participate in the process of fresh appointments. On account of completion of 61 years of age by the earlier Anganbari Karyakarta, the post become vacant and on account of interim order dated 06.12.2022, nobody could be appointed hence, the post is lying vacant for last around more than 3 years. 8. In the light of above, when no statutory or fundamental right of the petitioner is infringed by the impugned advertisement, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J Neeru/43