In a recent legal case regarding Anganwadi Sevika appointments, the High Court’s in-depth analysis of the guidelines highlighted the importance of strict adherence to criteria in government selections. The Court’s interpretation has broader implications for future appointment processes, emphasizing the necessity of consistent application of guidelines in such matters.
Facts
- The appellant’s appointment as Anganwadi Sevika was cancelled by the District Programme Officer
- The guidelines for Anganwadi Sevikas appointments were contained in Margdarshika – 2006
- The High Court passed an order on 26.04.2017 in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1988 of 2016
- The 9th Respondent challenged the appellant’s appointment by filing a complaint, leading to the appeal
- A merit list was prepared where the 9th Respondent was ranked first and the appellant second
- Guidelines in Clause 3 specify qualifications and conditions for selection as Anganwadi Sevika
- The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur passed orders on 20.03.2013 stating that the respondent was ineligible for appointment based on guidelines dated 03.10.2006.
- The Appellate Authority, Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur confirmed the District Magistrate’s decision on 30.10.2013.
- The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of appointment, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court.
- The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashed the orders passed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur, and the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Analysis in 1989 Scheme Eligibility Case
Arguments
- The petitioner argues that the High Court order should not be interfered with.
- The Single Judge misinterpreted the guidelines and allowed the writ petition of the 9th Respondent.
- The respondents argue that the 9th Respondent is a married daughter of a government servant with her matrimonial home in Muzaffarpur.
- The father of the 9th Respondent was also posted in Vaishali as a teacher, justifying the interpretation of sub-clause ‘E’ of Clause 3 of the guidelines by the Single Judge.
- The order was confirmed in the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA).
- The appointment of the 9th Respondent was canceled by the Collector and the Commissioner, but the Single Judge interfered without valid reasons.
Also Read: Legal Analysis of Unilateral Cancellation of Registered Sale Deed
Analysis
- The High Court interpreted Clause 3 of the guidelines to apply only to unmarried daughters.
- The High Court considered the respondent eligible for appointment in Muzaffarpur based on her paternal home being in Vaishali.
- The interpretation by the High Court was deemed contradictory to Clause 3 of the guidelines.
- The respondent was residing in Muzaffarpur post-marriage, which is her matrimonial home.
- It was established that relatives like daughters/wives/daughter-in-laws of government servants are ineligible for the Anganwadi Sevika appointment.
- The guidelines mentioned in the criteria must be interpreted without deviation in a particular case
- The Division Bench did not consider the guidelines properly and affirmed the Single Judge’s judgment
- Clause 3(E) of the guidelines was struck down by the High Court on 06.05.2010
- For the selection relating to the year 2006, the applicable guidelines at that time must be considered
Also Read: Legal Analysis on Special Procedures and Dismissal Orders in Police Force Case
Decision
- The appellant and Respondent 9 can continue in their current roles as Anganwadi Sevika until new selections are made.
- Both the appellant and Respondent 9 have the option to apply for the positions when the fresh notification is issued.
- No specific direction can be given to appoint the appellant due to the evolving circumstances.
- The Civil Appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside.
- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2120 of 2014 is dismissed, with a directive for issuing a fresh notification for the appointment of Anganwadi Sevika.
- The fresh selection process should be conducted as per current guidelines, considering the claims of the appellant and Respondent 9 if they apply.
Case Title: REKHA BHARATI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2021 INSC 728)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006875-006875 / 2021
