Appointment Contrary to Rules is Void Ab Initio: Rajasthan HC Upholds Cancellation of Supervisor Post

Jodhpur: The High Court of Rajasthan has ruled that an appointment made in contravention of statutory recruitment rules is void ab initio, upholding the cancellation of a woman's appointment to the post of Supervisor (Women). The court, presided over by Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati, emphasized that eligibility criteria specified in an advertisement, which are based on statutory rules, cannot be overlooked or altered after the selection process has commenced.

---

Case Background

The case was brought by Smt. Sharda Ladna, who challenged the order dated April 24, 2025, cancelling her appointment as a Supervisor (Women) under the Integrated Child Development Service.

The state had issued two separate advertisements for the post of Supervisor:

1. Advertisement No. 03/2024: This was for a "Direct Recruitment" quota specifically for in-service Anganwadi Workers with a minimum of 10 years of experience.

2. Advertisement No. 05/2024: This was for direct recruitment from the open market for female candidates who had cleared the Common Eligibility Test.

Smt. Ladna, possessing over 17 years of experience as an Anganwadi Worker (from 2006 to January 2024), applied under Advertisement No. 03/2024. She was selected, appointed, and even joined duty. However, at the time of her application in February 2024, she was employed as a Forest Guard, having left her Anganwadi position in January 2024. The respondents subsequently cancelled her appointment on the grounds that she was not an in-service Anganwadi Worker on the date of the advertisement.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Arguments: - Mr. S.K. Mali, counsel for the petitioner, argued that Smt. Ladna met the essential qualification of having 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi Worker. - He contended that the advertisement did not explicitly require continuous or current service as an Anganwadi Worker, only the total experience. - Relying on K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh , he asserted that the respondents could not change the eligibility criteria after the selection process had started.

Respondents' Arguments: - Ms. Yashvi Khandelwal, representing the state, countered that the petitioner was ineligible from the outset. She pointed out that Advertisement No. 03/2024 was exclusively for in-service Anganwadi Workers, as distinct from the open market recruitment under Advertisement No. 05/2024. - She drew the court's attention to Rule 23 and Schedule-II of The Rajasthan Integrated Child Development (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 1998 ("RICDS Rules"), which mandate that 50% of Supervisor posts are to be filled from amongst Anganwadi Workers. - Citing Union of India & Anr. v. Raghuwar Pal Singh , she argued that any appointment made de hors (outside of) the statutory rules is void ab initio and was rightly cancelled.

Court's Analysis and Key Precedents

Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati meticulously examined the two advertisements and the governing statutory framework. The court found the distinction between the two recruitment channels to be clear and unambiguous.

Pivotal Judgment Excerpts:

The Court observed:

"The title of the advertisement (Annex.P/1) - “Supervisor (Women) (Anganwadi Worker) Direct Recruitment, 2024” as well as the Eligibility and Educational Qualification Criteria make it evident that the recruitment initiated vide Advertisement (Annex.P/1) was to be made from amongst the in-service Anganwadi Workers."

The court rejected the petitioner's claim that the rules of the game were changed mid-way, stating that her interpretation was contrary to the RICDS Rules, 1998. It was noted that the petitioner was admittedly working as a Forest Guard when she applied under a quota meant for currently serving Anganwadi Workers.

The judgment heavily relied on the principle that appointments violating statutory provisions are void from the beginning. The court quoted the Supreme Court's decision in State of Odisha & Ors. v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan :

"It is a trite law that the appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio."

The court concluded that the petitioner was well aware of the eligibility criteria but applied under the wrong category.

"The petitioner was well aware of the requisite Eligibility and Educational qualification... that she should be an in-service candidate having experience of ten years, however, she applied under the said advertisement (Annex.P/1) instead of advertisement No.05/2024... the petitioner with open eyes applied for the said post."

Final Decision

Finding that the petitioner's appointment was in clear violation of the statutory RICDS Rules and the explicit terms of the advertisement, the High Court held that the cancellation was justified. The writ petition was dismissed as being devoid of merit.