A valid original selection cannot be replaced merely because it produced a solitary candidate.

An advertisement was issued on 14 April 2007 for appointment as Anganwadi Sevika at Centre No. 37, Gram Panchayat Ratanpur, Supaul. Punam Devi was the sole applicant, and her name appeared in the merit list published on 2 May 2007.

Instead of appointing her, the Selection Committee directed fresh mapping of the feeder area and subsequently invited fresh applications. Sunita Devi was selected on the basis of the second process on 11 August 2007.

Upon Punam Devi’s complaint, an enquiry found Sunita Devi’s selection illegal. The District Magistrate, Supaul, cancelled Sunita Devi’s appointment on 15 June 2010 and directed selection on the basis of the original merit list. The Commissioner, Koshi Division, affirmed that order on 4 October 2010.

During the pendency of Sunita Devi’s writ petition, Punam Devi was selected on 20 February 2011 and thereafter continuously worked as Anganwadi Sevika.

The Single Judge upheld the finding that Sunita Devi’s selection was illegal but directed a fresh recruitment for Centre No. 37, principally because Punam Devi had been the sole candidate in the original selection and there was perceived uncertainty regarding the feeder area.

No fresh advertisement was issued pursuant to the Single Judge’s order, and Punam Devi continued to work and receive honorarium.

Whether the Single Judge was justified in directing a fresh/de novo selection for Centre No. 37 after upholding the cancellation of Sunita Devi’s appointment and the original merit list in which Punam Devi was the sole candidate?

Whether Punam Devi’s selection and appointment could be displaced merely because she was the sole candidate in the original selection process, in the absence of any finding that the original advertisement, feeder area, merit list, or her candidature was illegal or defective?

The Court applied the principle that an administrative selection process cannot be reopened or replaced without a legally sustainable finding that the original process was invalid, defective, or incapable of implementation.

A subsequent selection process found to be contrary to departmental guidelines cannot create an adverse consequence for a candidate validly placed on the original merit list.

The Court further applied the principle that mere participation as a sole candidate, by itself, does not invalidate a selection or justify a de novo recruitment where the original advertisement, feeder area, merit list, and candidature have not been found unlawful.

The departmental guidelines governing Anganwadi selection required adherence to the notified process and applications received pursuant to the advertisement.

The Court held that the first selection process placed Punam Devi at the top of the merit list and had not been declared illegal by either the District Magistrate, the Commissioner, or the Single Judge.

The illegality arose from the subsequent alteration of the feeder area, fresh mapping, and fresh applications that resulted in Sunita Devi’s appointment; that process had been cancelled by the District Magistrate and the cancellation had been affirmed by the Commissioner.

Therefore, the consequences of the invalid subsequent process could not be used to deprive Punam Devi of the benefit of the original selection.

The Single Judge’s concern that Punam Devi was the sole candidate did not amount to a finding of illegality or justify treating the centre as vacant.

Since Punam Devi had been appointed pursuant to the operative orders of the District Magistrate and Commissioner and had continuously discharged her duties, the direction for fresh recruitment was held to be unwarranted.

The direction dated 18 January 2019 requiring fresh/de novo recruitment for Anganwadi Sevika at Centre No. 37 was set aside.

The orders of the District Magistrate dated 15 June 2010 and the Commissioner dated 4 October 2010 were directed to operate, and Punam Devi was permitted to continue as Anganwadi Sevika.