caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Rekha Bharati vs The State Of Bihar on 15 November, 2021Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.32215 of 2017
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6875 OF 2021
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.32215 of 2017)
Kumari Rekha Bharati …Appellant
versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Civil Appeal is directed against the order
dated 26.04.2017, passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1988
of 2016. By the aforesaid order, Order dated
07.09.2016 passed in CWJC No.2120 of 2014 by the
learned Single Judge, was confirmed. The learned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2021.11.15
14:47:36 IST
Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by
Reason:
the 9th Respondent, by quashing the order dated
20.03.2013 passed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur and
1
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.32215 of 2017
the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in Appeal No. 246
of 2013 by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division,
Muzaffarpur.
3. In the year 2006, an advertisement was issued by
the Mukhiya / Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat
Mirapur (Kumrapakar) Panchayat, inviting applications
for appointment of Anganwadi Sevika in Panchayat
Centre No.43/09 of Gram Panchayat Mirapur, Block
Muraul, district Muzaffarpur. For the aforesaid
purpose, a merit list was prepared in which 9th
Respondent herein, was placed at Sl.No.01 and the
appellant was at Sl.No.02.
4. In first round of litigation, when the appellant
was appointed, the same was questioned by the 9 th
Respondent by filing a complaint. Based on the
complaint, the appointment of the appellant was
cancelled by the District Programme Officer,
Muzaffarpur vide order dated 09.01.2008. When the
cancellation was challenged, High Court in CWJC
No.3408 of 2008, while quashing the termination of
the appellant, issued directions to the District
Magistrate to pass appropriate orders after hearing
both the parties. Pursuant to the order of the High
Court, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur has
2
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.32215 of 2017
passed orders on 20.03.2013 relying on clause 3
(Anga) of guidelines dated 03.10.2006, holding that
the 9th Respondent herein, was ineligible for
appointment, on the ground that at the relevant time,
her father was a government teacher. The order of
the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur was confirmed by
the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 30.10.2013.
5. As against the order of cancellation of the
appointment, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority,
9th Respondent herein, has filed a writ petition
before the High Court. The writ petition was allowed
by the learned Single Judge by order dated 07.09.2016
passed in CWJC No.2120 of 2014. The order of the
learned Single Judge was subject matter of Letters
Patent Appeal No. 1988 of 2016. By impugned order
dated 26.04.2017, the Division Bench of the High
Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant
herein, confirming the order of the learned Single
Judge. Thus, the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal
before the High Court, is appellant before this Court
in the present appeal.
6. We have heard Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Saket
3
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.32215 of 2017
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
Nos.1-8. Respondent No.9 though served, has not
chosen to appear.
7. Appointments of Anganwadi Sevikas, during the
relevant time, was governed by guidelines which were
issued in the shape of a policy contained in
Margdarshika – 2006. Clause 3 of the guidelines deals
with the qualifications / conditions for selection to
the post of Anganwadi Sevika. The relevant guidelines
for the purpose of this appeal in Clause 3(E) read as
under:
“3.Qualifications / Conditions for selection
of Anganwadi Sevikain:
A. … … …
B. … … …
C. … … …
D. … … …
E. Public Servant, Head, Member of Panchayat
Samiti / Ward Member / Member of District
Council, etc., themselves or their relatives,
sellers of the various public articles (such
as Public Distribution System vendor, Mobile
Kerosene Oil Dealer, Inter-Departmental post
office employee, etc.) relatives such as
daughter / wife / daughter-in-law of the
Govt. and semi–govt. Servants, will not be
selected for this post.”
8. The pointed argument of the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant is that the father of
Respondent No.9 was a government servant and was
4
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.32215 of 2017
serving as teacher in a government school, as such,
9th Respondent was not eligible for appointment in
view of Clause 3 of the Guidelines dated 03.10.2006.
It is contended that though appointment of 9th
Respondent was rightly cancelled by the Collector,
Muzaffarpur and the said order was confirmed by the
Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Tirhut
Division, Muzaffarpur, the learned Single Judge
interfered with such orders in the petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
without assigning valid reasons. It is submitted that
learned Single Judge has misconstrued the relevant
guidelines and allowed the writ petition of the 9 th
Respondent. On the other hand, it is the case of the
respondents that 9th Respondent is married daughter of
a government servant and her matrimonial home is in
the district of Muzaffarpur, whereas, her paternal
home is situated in the district of Vaishali. It is,
further, submitted that the father of 9th Respondent
was posted somewhere in the district of Vaishali as a
teacher, therefore, sub-clause ‘E’ of Clause 3 of the
guidelines was rightly interpreted by the learned
Single Judge, and allowed the Writ Petition. It is
submitted that said order is also confirmed in LPA.
5
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.32215 of 2017
It is submitted that there are no grounds to
interfere with the impugned order passed by the High
Court.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,
we have perused the impugned order and other material
placed on record.
10. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time,
selections were governed by guidelines, issued by the
concerned department on 03.10.2006. From a reading of
Clause 3 of the guidelines, it is clear that
relatives such as daughter/wife/daughter-in-law of
the government servant is ineligible for appointment
as Anganwadi Sevika. The learned Single Judge has
interpreted Clause 3 of the guidelines and held that
the said guidelines are to be applied only for
unmarried daughters. Further, it is held that the 9th
Respondent after her marriage is residing in the
district of Muzaffarpur, which is her matrimonial
home. In view of her case that her paternal home is
in the district of Vaishali, the High Court was of
the view that she is eligible for appointment in the
district of Muzaffarpur, as her father was working as
a teacher in the district of Vaishali.
6
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.32215 of 2017
11. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by
interpreting the guidelines has held that, though the
paternal home of the 9th Respondent is in the district
of Vaishali but after her marriage, she is residing
at her matrimonial home in the district of
Muzaffarpur, as such she is to be treated as eligible
candidate. Such interpretation runs contrary to
Clause 3 of the guidelines. For the purpose of
considering the eligibility the guideline as
indicated under sub-clause (E) is to be construed as
it reads. No distinction can be drawn between a
married daughter and unmarried daughter for the
purpose of considering the eligibility as per the
guidelines. It is quite common in rural areas, the
paternal home and maternal home may be in the same
village sometimes. When the criteria is notified in
the guidelines such guidelines have to be interpreted
as it is without deviating the same keeping in mind
the facts of a particular case. Even the Division
Bench has not considered the guidelines in proper
perspective and affirmed the judgment of the learned
Single Judge.
12. It is brought to our notice that such Clause 3(E)
of the guidelines was struck down subsequently by the
7
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.32215 of 2017
High Court on 06.05.2010. As much as the selection
relates to the year 2006, we have to consider the
guidelines which were applicable during the relevant
time. At the same time in view of the subsequent
development, no direction can be granted to appoint
the appellant, and selections are to be made by
issuing fresh notification.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Appeal is
allowed. The impugned order is set aside.
Consequently, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2120 of
2014 stands dismissed with a further direction to the
respondent authorities to issue fresh notification,
inviting applications for appointment to the post of
Anganwadi Sevika for the centre in question, and make
fresh selection as per the guidelines which are in
force now. It is made clear that the appellant and 9 th
Respondent are not precluded for applying pursuant to
fresh notification. If they apply, their claims also
be considered along with other candidates. Till such
fresh notification is issued and selections are made,
9th Respondent is entitled to continue as Anganwadi
Sevika.
14. The civil appeal is allowed with the directions,
as indicated above.
8
C.A.@ SLP(C) No.32215 of 2017
……………………………………………J
(R. SUBHASH REDDY)
……………………………………………J
(HRISHIKESH ROY)
New Delhi.
November 15th, 2021.
9
Comments