Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 40
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2024
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2233 of 2023)
ANJUM ARA …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR
AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. The appeal is taken up for hearing.
2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order
th
dated 28 November 2022 passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent
Appeal (LPA) No. 1853 of 2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case
(CWJC) No. 17585 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeal
filed by the present appellant.
3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are
as under:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Narendra Prasad
Date: 2024.01.13
12:42:46 IST
Reason:
th
3.1 On 17 October 2012, District Programme Officer,
Katihar published a notice for selection of Anganwari
1
Workers/Sevika. Pursuant to the said notice, the present
appellant as well as respondent No. 8 herein applied for the
said post in the selection process. The appellant has secured
80.60, whereas respondent No. 8 has secured 48.60 marks.
The appellant was appointed to the post of Anganwari Sevika
nd
on 2 July 2013.
3.2 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, Katihar praying for cancellation of the
nd
order of appointment dated 2 July 2013 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, Katihar vide order
th
dated 13 November 2014. Being aggrieved thereby,
respondent No. 8 preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Authority – Court of Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary,
Regional Transport Authority, Purnea. The Appellate
th
Authority, vide order dated 30 July 2015, allowed the appeal
filed by respondent No.8 while setting aside the order of
nd
appointment dated 2 July 2013 issued in favour of the
2
appellant. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ
petition being CWJC No. 17585 of 2015 before the High
Court of Judicature at Patna.
rd
3.3 The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 23 August
2016, dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved
thereby, the appellant filed LPA No.1853 of 2016 in CWJC No.
17585 of 2015 before the learned Division Bench of the High
Court. The same was also dismissed vide the impugned
order. Hence, the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Samir Ali Khan,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant 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 is submitted
that Clause 4.9 of Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011
(hereinafter referred to as “2011 Guidelines”), 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
th
order dated 27 September 2022 passed in CWJC No. 13210
3
of 2014. It is submitted that, however, this has been ignored
by the learned Division Bench.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State as well as respondent No.8 supported the impugned
judgment and order.
7. We find that both the learned Single Judge and the
Division Bench have grossly erred in dismissing the writ
petition as well as LPA filed by the appellant.
8. Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines imposed a restriction
on such persons whose family member or members have
secured appointment with the State Government or any
organization of the State. The said Clause 4.9 of the 2011
Guidelines came to be challenged before the High Court by
way of CWJC No. 13210 of 2014. The High Court, vide
th
judgment and order dated 27 September 2022, after
elaborate discussion, struck down the said Clause 4.9 of the
2011 Guidelines.
9. The only ground on which the appellant has been non-
suited 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.
4
10. When the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines was
th
struck down by the High Court vide judgment dated 27
September 2022, 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. In that view of the matter, we find
that the judgments and orders passed by the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench are not sustainable in
law.
11. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed;
th
(ii) The impugned judgments and orders dated 28
November 2022 in LPA No. 1853 of 2016 in CWJC No.
rd
17585 and dated 23 August 2016 in CWJC No.
17585 of 2015, passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna are quashed and set aside;
(iii) The writ petition being CWJC No. 17585 as well as
the appeal being LPA No. 1853 of 2016 filed by the
appellant before the High Court of Judicature at
Patna are allowed by setting aside the order dated
th
30 July 2015 passed by the Appellate Authority;
and
(iv) The appellant is directed to be reinstated forthwith.
5
12. It is further directed that though the appellant would
not be entitled to wages for the period during which she was
out of employment, she would be entitled to continuity in
service for all other purposes.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in
the above terms.
….……..….......................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
……………..….........................J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 08, 2024.
6