Anganwadi eligibility for 2017 selections is governed by the 2016 guidelines.

The appellant was appointed as an Anganwadi Sevika at Bajaraha Ward No. 9 following a selection in 2017.

The District Programme Officer terminated her services by order dated 25 January 2019. Her challenge was unsuccessful before the appellate authority on 12 March 2020 and before the Single Judge in CWJC No. 1445 of 2021 on 1 July 2025.

In appeal, she contended that she and her husband lived separately from her father-in-law and were not dependent on his income.

The Division Bench first condoned a three-day delay in filing the appeal.

1. Whether the appellant’s eligibility for appointment was governed by the 2016 Anganwadi Guidelines, given that the selection took place in 2017.

2. Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition warranted appellate interference in light of the appellant’s contention that she lived separately from her father-in-law.

The Court applied Clause 6 of the Anganwadi Guidelines, 2016, treating the eligibility conditions in force at the time of selection as applicable to a 2017 selection.

It noted that the relevant bar was removed under the 2018 Guidelines, but those later Guidelines did not govern this selection.

The judgment cited no statute or precedent.

The Court accepted that the selection occurred in 2017 and therefore assessed eligibility under the 2016 Guidelines, notwithstanding the subsequent amendment in 2018.

It considered the appellant’s submission regarding separation from her father-in-law but, having regard to the Single Judge’s conclusion that Clause 6 imposed an absolute and unqualified disqualification, found no basis to interfere with the dismissal of the writ petition.

The Court also noted the direction for a fresh selection in the Anganwadi revision proceedings.

It separately condoned the three-day filing delay and made no order as to costs.