Candidate’s permanent residence must be determined as of the application deadline for Anganwadi appointment.

The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent No. 8, Smt. Anjana Soni, as an Anganwadi worker at the Anganwadi Centre, Semrakhurd, District Guna.

The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 8 was not a resident of Semrakhurd but of village Jamner and had relied upon a forged domicile certificate.

The petitioner and respondent No. 8 had both applied for the post pursuant to the relevant recruitment process.

By order dated 17 January 2019, the High Court found that the authority had not properly examined the residential-status documents produced by the parties and directed the Tahsildar, Aron, to conduct an enquiry after hearing both parties.

The Tahsildar submitted his report dated 19 March 2021.

During hearing, reference was also made to the order dated 20 March 2012 passed by the SDO, Aron, in Case No. 70/Appeal/2009-10; respondent No. 8 contended that the said order had subsequently been quashed by the Additional Collector on 31 July 2012.

The parties jointly requested that the matter be remitted to the Collector, Guna, for fresh consideration.

1. Whether the residential status of respondent No. 8, as on the last date for submission of applications in April 2010, was required to be determined for deciding her eligibility for appointment as Anganwadi worker.

2. Whether the appointment dispute could be decided without a fresh, detailed consideration of the Tahsildar’s enquiry report, the SDO’s order, the recruitment advertisement, the applicable policy, and the documents produced by both parties.

The High Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure a lawful, fair, and reasoned determination of the appointment dispute.

The applicable recruitment advertisement and policy governing appointment of Anganwadi workers were required to be considered, particularly the eligibility requirement concerning residence in the relevant village.

The Court applied the principles of natural justice by directing that both the petitioner and respondent No. 8 be afforded a personal hearing and an opportunity to submit documents.

It further required the competent authority to pass a detailed and speaking order after considering the relevant enquiry material and prior orders.

The Court did not finally determine whether respondent No. 8 was a resident of Semrakhurd or Jamner.

It noted that the earlier decision-making process had not adequately considered the documents and competing claims regarding residence.

Since the Tahsildar had subsequently submitted an enquiry report dated 19 March 2021, and the parties disputed the legal status of the SDO’s order dated 20 March 2012, the Court considered it appropriate for the Collector, Guna, to undertake a fresh determination.

The Collector was specifically directed to assess residence as on the cut-off date—the last date for submission of applications in April 2010—and to consider the advertisement, applicable policy, the Tahsildar’s report, the SDO’s order, and all documents submitted by the parties.

The Collector, Guna, was directed to decide the matter afresh within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order, after giving personal hearing to the petitioner and respondent No. 8 and passing a detailed, speaking order in accordance with law.

The Collector was specifically required to determine whether respondent No. 8 was a permanent resident of Semrakhurd or Jamner on the relevant cut-off date and to consider all relevant documents, the Tahsildar’s report, the SDO’s order, the advertisement, and the applicable policy.

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, were also disposed of.