A higher-merit local resident must be appointed as Anganwadi Worker over a less-meritorious candidate.

The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 6 as Anganwadi Worker at the concerned Anganwadi Centre in Ward No. 12, Bhind Bhander Road, Lahar, District Bhind.

Pursuant to the applicable government policy and advertisement, three applications were received. The petitioner was placed first in the merit list and secured 42 marks, whereas respondent No. 6 secured 30 marks and was appointed on 18.01.2008.

The petitioner’s appeal before the Collector was allowed by remanding the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both parties; however, the Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, allowed respondent No. 6’s appeal and held that the petitioner was not a local resident of the relevant ward.

The petitioner relied on her family/ration card, voter list, and a residence certificate issued by the District Election Officer showing residence at Bhind Bhander Road, Lahar, since 01.01.2006.

She also stated that, although married to Ramnaresh Ojha, she had been residing with her father due to a matrimonial dispute and had continuously lived in the locality.

Whether the petitioner was a local resident of Ward No. 12, Bhind Bhander Road, Lahar, and therefore eligible for appointment as Anganwadi Worker.

Whether the Commissioner was justified in setting aside the Collector’s order and sustaining respondent No. 6’s appointment despite the petitioner’s higher merit and residence documents.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment and consequential benefits, and what relief should be granted to respondent No. 6, who had continued in service since 2008.

The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review the legality of the impugned administrative orders.

The applicable Anganwadi appointment policy required consideration of eligibility, local residence, and comparative merit.

The Court treated uncontroverted documentary evidence of residence and the petitioner’s undisputed higher position in the merit list as material factors in determining entitlement to appointment.

Consequential monetary relief was limited in accordance with the principle of “no work, no pay,” and the Court directed that the petitioner would not receive back wages despite being granted appointment.

The Court found that the petitioner stood first in the merit list and was more meritorious than respondent No. 6.

Her family/ration card, voter list, and residence certificate supported her claim that she resided in Ward No. 12, Lahar, where the Anganwadi Centre was situated.

The respondents did not dispute or controvert these documents or the petitioner’s higher merit in their return.

The Court also accepted the petitioner’s explanation that her residence with her father, rather than with her husband in another district, was attributable to the matrimonial dispute.

Consequently, the Commissioner’s finding that she was not a local resident was held unsustainable, and the orders upholding respondent No. 6’s appointment were liable to be quashed.

The Commissioner’s order dated 01.12.2010 was quashed and set aside; consequently, the Collector’s order dated 16.03.2009 and respondent No. 6’s appointment order were also quashed.

The respondents were directed to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker and extend consequential benefits, excluding back wages under the principle of “no work, no pay.”

Since respondent No. 6 had served since 2008, the official respondents were directed to endeavour to adjust her against a suitable post at a nearby Anganwadi Centre, if possible.