Unfilled Anganwadi Worker vacancy warrants reconsideration of Helper’s promotion, subject to applicable eligibility rules.

The petitioner was engaged as an Anganwadi Helper at Anganwadi Centre W. No. 10, Ward No. 10 (Urban), Udhampur, on 12 November 2009.

After the Anganwadi Worker left the engagement in January 2015, the petitioner claimed to have discharged the duties of both Anganwadi Worker and Helper.

The respondents issued Advertisement Notice No. 11 of 2017 dated 12 May 2017 for engagement of an Anganwadi Worker at the concerned Centre.

The petitioner challenged the advertisement and sought her selection/promotion, relying on Government Order No. 07-SW of 2010, which provided for filling certain vacancies of Anganwadi Worker from among eligible Anganwadi Helpers.

The respondents contended that she was ineligible because she had only approximately eight years’ experience when the vacancy arose and was over the prescribed age limit of 18–44 years as on 1 January 2017.

The selection process was stayed during the pendency of the petition.

1. Whether the petitioner was eligible for appointment/promotion as Anganwadi Worker against the vacancy advertised in 2017, having regard to the requirement of ten years’ experience under Government Order No. 07-SW of 2010.

2. Whether the petitioner was eligible to participate in the selection process despite being above the prescribed age limit of 18–44 years as on 1 January 2017.

3. Whether, in view of the petitioner’s continued discharge of the duties of Anganwadi Worker and Helper and the vacancy remaining unfilled, her claim could be directed to be reconsidered by the respondents.

The Court applied Government Order No. 07-SW of 2010, clause 3(i), under which a vacancy of Anganwadi Worker arising from resignation, promotion, or any reason other than death is to be filled from among village Helpers possessing at least matriculation qualification and not less than ten years’ experience “at the time of accruing of vacancy”.

The Court also applied the eligibility conditions in Advertisement Notice No. 11 of 2017, including the age requirement of 18–44 years as on 1 January 2017 and the minimum qualification of matriculation.

The governing principle was that eligibility must be assessed with reference to the applicable rules and the date on which the vacancy accrued, and subsequent acquisition of experience does not retrospectively cure ineligibility.

The Court held that the vacancy arose in 2017, when the petitioner admittedly had only about eight years’ experience as an Anganwadi Helper; therefore, she did not satisfy the mandatory ten-year experience requirement under Government Order No. 07-SW of 2010 at the relevant time.

Independently, she was aged 47 years as on 1 January 2017 and consequently exceeded the advertisement’s upper age limit of 44 years.

Thus, the petitioner was not eligible to claim appointment or promotion as a matter of right under the 2017 advertisement.

However, since the vacancy had allegedly remained unfilled and the petitioner had continued to perform the duties of both Anganwadi Worker and Helper for more than 17 years by the time of decision, the Court considered it appropriate to leave her claim open for reconsideration, subject to the applicable rules and any permissible age relaxation.

Nevertheless, the petition was disposed of with a direction to Respondents 2 and 3 to reconsider the petitioner’s claim for promotion as Anganwadi Worker, strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and by considering age relaxation if legally permissible, and to pass a speaking order within one month.

Until such claim was considered and decided, the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue discharging her duties at her present place of posting.