Appointment of Anganwadi Workers must be based on inter se merit despite selection committee procedural errors.

The petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker at Umaray Ka Pura on 30.09.2016 based on merit

Respondents No. 4 and 5 challenged this appointment before the Collector, Morena. The Collector cancelled the petitioner’s appointment, noting that while one respondent's appeal was untenable due to residency issues, both the petitioner and another candidate had their BPL cards cancelled

Consequently, the Collector ordered fresh appointment proceedings

This order was affirmed by the Commissioner, Chambal Division

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226, arguing that as the most meritorious candidate, a fresh selection process was unnecessary and contrary to the scheme

An interim order dated 09.10.2017 allowed the petitioner to continue in the post during the pendency of the litigation

1. Whether the Collector and Commissioner were justified in ordering a fresh selection process instead of determining the inter-se merit of existing candidates

2. Whether the petitioner, as a meritorious candidate, should be penalized for procedural faults committed by the Selection Committee

The Court applied principles governing administrative appointments under the Anganwadi Worker Scheme, focusing on the doctrine of merit-based selection

petitioner as well as other candidates cannot be faulted due to fault committed by the Selection Committee

the court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure that the appellate authority decides inter-se merit rather than initiating a de novo process

The Court observed that the petitioner was originally appointed on the basis of superior merit

It found that while the Collector identified issues regarding BPL card cancellations, the decision to order a fresh selection process was erroneous because it failed to properly evaluate the inter-se merit of the original applicants

The Court reasoned that if the Selection Committee erred, the remedy is not to restart the entire process—effectively punishing the candidates—but to rectify the merit list

Since the petitioner and respondent No. 6 both agreed that the Collector could decide the inter-se merit based on the existing merit list dated 15.09.2016, the Court determined that a targeted hearing was the most equitable solution

The Collector is ordered to decide the most meritorious candidate among the affected persons, including the petitioner and respondents, and appoint the meritorious person within four months

The petitioner remains in the post per the previous interim order until this fresh determination is made