In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2024-SC- Not necessary for litigant to challenge Clause 4.9 of Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011 when same have been struck down: Apex Court reinstates woman to Anganwari Worker post
Justices B.R. Gavai & Sandeep Mehta [08-01-2024]

Read Order: ANJUM ARA v. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

LE Correspondent

New Delhi, January 16, 2024: While reinstating the appellant to the post of Anganwari Sevika, the Supreme Court has held that the appellant was not required to challenge the validity of Clause 4.9 of the Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011 when they have already been struck down by the Patna High Court.

The Division Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta was considering an appeal challenging the judgment passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Letters Patent Appeal thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant.

The facts of the case which led to the filing of the appeal was that in the year 2012, District Programme Officer, Katihar published a notice for selection of Anganwari Workers/Sevika. Pursuant to the said notice, the present appellant as well as respondent No. 8 applied for the said post .The appellant was appointed to the post of Anganwari Sevika in 2013.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of appointment issued in favour of the appellant, respondent No.8 submitted a representation before the District Programme Officer praying for cancellation of the order of appointment issued in favour of the appellant. She also prayed for a direction to issue an order of appointment in her favour. The same came to be rejected by the District Programme Officer. The Appellate Authority – Court of Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Purnea allowed the appeal while setting aside the order of appointment issued in appellant’s favour.

Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court. The same was also dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence, the appeal was filed before the Top Court.

It was the appellant’s case that the only ground on which the appellant was held to be disqualified was that her father was a Panchayat Teacher and he was drawing a salary of Rs 6,000 per month. It was submitted that Clause 4.9 of Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011 which imposed certain restrictions, was found to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by the High Court vide an order passed in CWJC No. 13210 of 2014. It was submitted that, however, this had been ignored by the learned Division Bench.

The Apex Court was of the opinion that both the Single Judge and the Division Bench had grossly erred in dismissing the writ petition as well as LPA filed by the appellant.

Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines imposed a restriction on such persons whose family member or members had secured appointment with the State Government or any organization of the State. The said Clause came to be challenged before the High Court and the same was struck down.

“The only ground on which the appellant has been nonsuited was that the appellant had not challenged the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines before the High Court. We find that the reasoning as adopted by the learned Division Bench is totally unsustainable”, the Bench said.

The Apex Court was of the view that when the said Clause was struck down by the High Court, it ceased to exist. As such, it was not necessary for the appellant to challenge the validity of the same inasmuch as the same was already held to be invalid by the very same High Court.

Thus, holding that the judgments and orders passed by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench were not sustainable in law.