Procedural irregularities in Anganbari Sevika selection do not vitiate appointment if the candidate meets substantive eligibility.

In the initial merit list published on 09.03.2015, the Appellant was ranked Serial No. 2 (67.2%) and Respondent No. 6 was Serial No. 3 (65%).

Respondent No. 6 was eventually appointed after being granted five additional marks for disability by the Aam Sabha.

The Appellant successfully challenged this before the District Programme Officer, who set aside the appointment on 14.06.2016, leading to the Appellant’s appointment.

However, on 30.07.2018, the Collector reversed this decision, restoring Respondent No. 6 to the post on the grounds that she was entitled to disability weightage.

The Appellant challenged the Collector’s order via a writ petition (CWJC No. 20506 of 2018), which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 07.10.2024.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in treating the procedural grant of disability marks by the Aam Sabha (rather than the CDPO) as a mere irregularity rather than an illegality vitiating the selection.

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can interfere with the factual findings of an appellate authority regarding the comparative merits and weightage of candidates in a selection process.

The Court applied the principles governing the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) guidelines regarding weightage for disabled candidates.

Judicial review in selection matters is limited; courts cannot sit as an appellate authority over selection committees or re-appreciate comparative merits unless the process is vitiated by mala fides, arbitrariness, or patent perversity [Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke v. Dr. B.S. Mahajan (1990) 1 SCC 305].

The Court observed that the Appellant did not contest Respondent No. 6’s actual eligibility for disability weightage, but only the procedural stage and authority through which the marks were granted.

The Court reasoned that since Respondent No. 6 was substantively entitled to the marks under ICDS guidelines, the failure of the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) to include them initially was an administrative omission.

The subsequent rectification by the Aam Sabha and the Collector was deemed a procedural "irregularity" and not a "manifest illegality" that would nullify the selection.

The Court emphasized that there was no evidence of fraud or mala fides.

Following Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke, the Court held it lacks the expertise to reassess candidate fitness and must defer to the findings of the statutory appellate authority (the Collector) unless perversity is proven.

The Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge, finding no jurisdictional error or perversity. The Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed, and the restoration of Respondent No. 6 to the post of Anganbari Sevika was upheld.