IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment as Anganwadi Sevika – No distinction can be drawn between a married daughter and unmarried daughter for the purpose of considering eligibility as per guidelines – When criteria is notified in guidelines such guidelines have to be interpreted as it is without deviating the same keeping in mind facts of a particular case.

JUDGMENT :

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This Civil Appeal is directed against the order dated 26.04.2017, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1988 of 2016. By the aforesaid order, Order dated 07.09.2016 passed in CWJC No.2120 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge, was confirmed. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the 9th Respondent, by quashing the order dated 20.03.2013 passed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur and the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in Appeal No. 246 of 2013 by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.

3. In the year 2006, an advertisement was issued by the Mukhiya/Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mirapur (Kumrapakar) Panchayat, inviting applications for appointment of Anganwadi Sevika in Panchayat Centre No.43/09 of Gram Panchayat Mirapur, Block Muraul, district Muzaffarpur. For the aforesaid purpose, a merit list was prepared in which 9th Respondent herein, was placed at Sl.No.01 and the appellant was at Sl.No.02.

4. In first round of litigation, when the appellant was appointed, the same was questioned by the 9th Respondent by filing a complaint. Based on the complaint, the appointment of the appellant was cancelled by the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 09.01.2008. When the cancellation was challenged, High Court in CWJC No.3408 of 2008, while quashing the termination of the appellant, issued directions to the District Magistrate to pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur has passed orders on 20.03.2013 relying on clause 3 (Anga) of guidelines dated 03.10.2006, holding that the 9th Respondent herein, was ineligible for appointment, on the ground that at the relevant time, her father was a government teacher. The order of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur was confirmed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 30.10.2013.

5. As against the order of cancellation of the appointment, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, 9th Respondent herein, has filed a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 07.09.2016 passed in CWJC No.2120 of 2014. The order of the learned Single Judge was subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1988 of 2016. By impugned order dated 26.04.2017, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court, is appellant before this Court in the present appeal.

6. We have heard Mr. Kumar Dushyant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Saket Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1-8. Respondent No.9 though served, has not chosen to appear.

7. Appointments of Anganwadi Sevikas, during the relevant time, was governed by guidelines which were issued in the shape of a policy contained in Margdarshika – 2006. Clause 3 of the guidelines deals with the qualifications/conditions for selection to the post of Anganwadi Sevika. The relevant guidelines for the purpose of this appeal in Clause 3(E) read as under :

“3.Qualifications/Conditions for selection of Anganwadi Sevikain:

A. ... ... ...

B. ... ... ...

C. ... ... ...

D. ... ... ...

E. Public Servant, Head, Member of Panchayat Samiti/Ward Member/Member of District Council, etc., themselves or their relatives, sellers of the various public articles (such as Public Distribution System vendor, Mobile Kerosene Oil Dealer, Inter-Departmental post office employee, etc.) relatives such as daughter/wife/daughter-in-law of the Govt. and semi–govt. Servants, will not be selected for this post.”

8. The pointed argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the father of Respondent No.9 was a government servant and was serving as teacher in a govern