Bengal HC Sets Aside Anganwadi Job Rejection Over Expired Panel, Orders Fresh Consideration If Project Continues And Vacancy Exists

The petitioner applied for appointment as an Anganwadi Worker under a notification dated 24 September 1998.

After her representation seeking consideration was not acted upon, she obtained an order in an earlier writ petition directing the authorities to consider it.

On 8 July 2008, respondent no. 7 rejected the representation, stating that the panel’s validity period had expired.

The petitioner challenged that decision and sought consideration of her appointment, contending that the project remained ongoing and that the rejection gave no adequate reasons.

An administrative order rejecting a representation must be a reasoned, or “speaking,” order and reflect proper consideration of the relevant matter; an order displaying non-application of mind may be set aside.

The Court also treated compliance with the principles of natural justice and fair play as relevant to the decision.

It applied these principles to the notification dated 24 September 1998, which contained no stated time limit for consideration of the panel.

The rejection relied only on the asserted expiry of the panel’s validity, although the notification contained no such time limit.

It also failed to address the petitioner’s credentials or provide a reasoned assessment.

The Court therefore found the decision cryptic, perverse, and indicative of non-application of mind, and held that it could not stand.

Reconsideration was made conditional on the project still being ongoing and a relevant vacancy being available.

The authority was to pass a reasoned order within four weeks of communication of the judgment and communicate it to the petitioner within a further two weeks.

The Court clarified that the order created no right or equity in the petitioner if she was found ineligible.

The writ petition was disposed of without an order as to costs.