Shiny C. J. vs Shalini Sreenivasan & Ors. Etc.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 264

SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN
Shiny C. J. – Appellant
Versus
Shalini Sreenivasan & Ors. Etc. – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Manu Krishnan G, AOR Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A., AOR Mr. Krishna Dev Jagarlamudi, Adv. Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mrs. Devika A.l., Adv. Mr. Sarath S Janardanan, AOR Mrs. Vishnupriya P Govind, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Robin Vs, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Sharma A.S., AOR Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Rahul G. Tanwani, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Ms. Yatika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Kadali Vali Baba, Adv. Mr. S. Prasada Rao, Adv. Mr. Godavari V Durga Prasad, Adv. Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Mr. Shambhunath Bhanja, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Mahipal, Adv. Mr. Harshad V. Hameed, AOR Mr. Amol Chitravanshi, AOR Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Arora, Adv. M/s Lawyer S Knit & Co, AOR Mr. Vipin Nair, AOR Mr. Aditya Narendranath, Adv. Mr. P B Sashaankh, Adv. Mr. Haresh Nair, Adv. Ms. M.B. Ramya, Adv. Ms. Deeksha Gupta, Adv. Ms. Puspita Basak, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Yadav, Adv. Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Ms. Samyuktha H Nair, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly! Please provide the legal document content so I can identify the key points and references accordingly.

JUDGMENT

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Leave granted.

2. Whether Anganwadi Workers having a Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) with 10 years’ experience, by reason of having possessed or obtained a graduate degree; in their eligibility to apply for vacancies of Supervisors in the Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS) should be confined to the 11% earmarked for graduates? Whether by such earmarking of vacancies for graduates are they excluded from applying under the 29% vacancies available to Anganwadi Workers holding an SSLC certificate and 10 years’ experience, for reason only of possessing a higher qualification?

3. Sri. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Senior Counsel, led the arguments for the appellants and first took us to the rule position as it existed prior to 2013 and after the amendment, applicable from 01.01.2014. It is pointed out that the specific ratio carved out for the graduates amongst the Anganwadi Workers was from the ratio earlier kept apart for direct recruitment from graduates. This does not exclude the graduate Anganwadi Workers who have the requisite experience from applying in the 29% quota which they were always entitled to. Any interpretation otherwise would be d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document