Departmental clarification cannot override notified Anganwadi selection guidelines or withdraw prescribed merit marks.

The petitioner participated in the selection process for Anganwadi Helper at Anganwadi Centre Mohin-I, Gram Panchayat Gopalpur, District Mandi.

In the interview held on 26 July 2021, the selected candidate, Champa Devi, obtained 16 marks, while the petitioner obtained 15.50 marks.

The petitioner contended that she was entitled to two additional marks under Clause 7(E-1) of the revised guidelines dated 29 February 2016 because she had two daughters and no male child; her entitlement was supported by a Tehsildar’s certificate dated 14 July 2021.

Her appeal against the selection was rejected on 30 May 2023.

Although the Appellate Authority recorded her contention regarding denial of two marks, it decided the appeal only on the issue of the selected candidate’s income and did not address this ground.

The State relied on a clarification dated 4 June 2018, which restricted the benefit to families that had adopted permanent family planning after the birth of one or two daughters.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to two additional marks under the applicable Anganwadi appointment guidelines for being a married woman having two daughters and no male child.

Whether a clarification issued by the Director, Women and Child Welfare could restrict or modify the benefit granted under the notification dated 29 February 2016.

Whether the Appellate Authority’s failure to decide the petitioner’s specific ground regarding denial of two marks rendered its order legally unsustainable.

The Court applied Clause 7(E-1) of the revised Guidelines for appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers issued through the notification dated 29 February 2016, under which two marks were available in cases involving up to two daughters and no male issue.

The subsequent clarification dated 4 June 2018 was construed as extending the benefit to a married woman having up to two daughters and no male issue, but the Court held that an administrative clarification issued by the Director, Women and Child Welfare could neither supplement nor supplant the governing notification issued by the competent Secretary to the State Government.

The Court further applied the principle that an appellate or quasi-judicial authority must address and decide all material grounds raised before it; failure to do so renders the order defective for non-application of mind.

The petitioner’s certificate established that she had two daughters and no son, bringing her within the category contemplated by the applicable guidelines.

The State’s attempt to impose an additional requirement of permanent family planning was unsupported by any amendment to the governing notification.

Since the clarification was issued by a subordinate departmental authority and did not formally amend the notified guidelines, it could not deprive the petitioner of the marks otherwise available under the scheme.

Further, the Appellate Authority had expressly noted the petitioner’s contention but failed to adjudicate it, instead confining its decision to the selected candidate’s income. This omission independently rendered the appellate order unsustainable.

The order dated 30 May 2023 passed by the Appellate Authority was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to award the petitioner two additional marks and, since this placed her first in merit, to appoint her as Anganwadi Helper at Anganwadi Centre Mohin-I with effect from the date of Champa Devi’s appointment, together with all consequential benefits.

Any arrears were directed to be paid within six months, failing which they would carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of judgment.