Candidates under the Anganwadi Worker sub-category must possess the prescribed ten years’ experience, notwithstanding a bachelor’s degree.

The applicants challenged Rejection Notice No. 260 dated 22 June 2018, by which their candidature for the post of Supervisor Grade-II (Female), Post Code No. 212/14, pursuant to Advertisement No. 02/2014 issued through the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB), was rejected.

They had applied under the Anganwadi Worker sub-category, appeared in the written examination held on 5 March 2017, qualified for further consideration, and submitted their e-dossiers.

Their candidature was rejected on the ground that they did not possess the prescribed ten years’ experience as Anganwadi Workers.

The applicants had joined as Anganwadi Workers on 13 May 2011 and 2 July 2011 respectively and therefore lacked ten years’ experience on the relevant date.

The O.A. was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the rejection notice and appointment to the post.

Whether the applicants, having applied under the Anganwadi Worker sub-category, were required to possess ten years’ experience as Anganwadi Workers as an essential eligibility condition.

Whether the applicants fulfilled the prescribed eligibility requirement despite possessing Bachelor of Arts degrees but having less than ten years’ experience as Anganwadi Workers.

Whether the rejection of the applicants’ candidature by DSSSB was legally sustainable.

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which the applicants invoked its jurisdiction.

It applied the eligibility conditions contained in the relevant Recruitment Rules and Advertisement No. 02/2014: candidates applying under the Anganwadi Worker sub-category were required to possess matriculation together with ten years’ experience as an Anganwadi Worker, and such experience was expressly prescribed as essential for that category.

The Tribunal also relied upon the principle that eligibility must be assessed in accordance with the specific conditions applicable to the category under which a candidate seeks consideration; possession of a general educational qualification does not dispense with an additional mandatory experience requirement.

The respondents additionally relied upon Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. v. Manu & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 2818/2024, decided by the Delhi High Court on 15 July 2026, as having settled the issue against the applicants.

The Tribunal found it undisputed that the applicants had applied under the Anganwadi Worker sub-category.

Consequently, they were required to satisfy the specific condition of ten years’ experience as Anganwadi Workers, irrespective of whether they possessed B.A. degrees.

Since the applicants had joined the Department as Anganwadi Workers only on 13 May 2011 and 2 July 2011, they had approximately three years of experience when they applied pursuant to the 2014 advertisement and did not meet the mandatory experience requirement on the relevant date.

The Tribunal rejected the argument that their B.A. qualification independently satisfied the eligibility criteria, holding that the degree could not override or dispense with the experience condition attached to the Anganwadi Worker sub-category.

It therefore concluded that DSSSB had validly rejected their candidature for want of the prescribed experience.

It found no infirmity in Rejection Notice No. 260 dated 22 June 2018 and dismissed O.A. No. 1427/2019 as devoid of merit.

The pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly, and there was no order as to costs.