IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that arbitrary restrictions in public employment selection processes that violate the principles of equality and merit are unconstitutional.

JUDGMENT :

(Harish Kumar, J.) :

Heard Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, learned Advocate representing the appellant and Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, learned Advocate for respondent no.8. The State is represented by Mr. Gyan Prakash Ojha, learned GA-7.

2. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order/judgment of this Court dated 27.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13210 of 2014 whereby the learned Court has been pleased to allow the writ petition and strike down Clause 4.9 of the amended Guidelines dated 19.12.2013. The learned Court further set aside the appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant herein, who was holding the post of Angabari Sevika and directed to issue order of appointment in favour of private respondent no.8 herein.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant, assailing the impugned order/judgment, inter alia, submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error of law in striking down the amended provision of Clause 4.9 of the Guidelines issued for selection of Anganbari Sevika/Sahaika, as the writ petition was filed by ignoring the provisions prescribed in Rule 10 of 2011 Guidelines, which prescribed that any complaint against the selection of Anganbari Sevika could be filed before the District Programme Officer. Persons aggrieved by the order of the District Programme Officer, had the remedy of appeal before the Deputy Director, Welfare Department. However, despite having efficacious alternative remedy, the learned Court instead of relegating the matter to the appropriate authority adjudicated the matter and passed the impugned order.

It was also the contention of the appellant that the writ petitioner, a member of joint family and the elder brother of her husband as well as his wife being in service of Central Government posted in the same district, she has rightly not been selected in terms of the guidelines. The preference for better qualification is the ultimate and absolute requirement of selection of the Anganbari Sevika. Moreover, the post of Anganbari Sevika is not a public post under the Government and thus not protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India; it was also the contention of the appellant.

4. Mr. Abhay Shankar Singh, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.8 adverting to the facts of the case submitted that the writ petitioner-respondent no.8 herein being one of the eligible candidate for selection of Anganbari Sevika had applied along with others pursuant to advertisement issued by the competent authority. The employment unit considering the qualification and other requirements in terms of the guidelines, found the writ petitioner to be most eligible and thus she was placed in the final merit list at serial no.1. The private respondent no.8-appellant was placed at serial no.2. Despite securing 1st position in the merit list, the writ petitioner was ousted from the consideration zone by the Child Development Project Officer, Masaurhi, Patna in terms of Clause 4.9 of the 2011 guidelines, which came into effect with effect from 19.12.2013. The English translated copy of Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines is extracted herein below:

“4.9 Wife/Daughter-in-law/other relative of Government (Central Government and State Government)/Semi-Government Male Employee posted in the concerned Panchayat/Block/Circle/Sub-division and District will not be selected to the post of Sevika. (Relative means-mother (step/adopted son and daughter/sister-in-law (i.e. wife of elder and younger brother), daughter, sister). And along with this, in the case of Government (Central Government and State Government)/Semi-Government Female Employee/Officer, the wife, daughter-in-law, daughter of the own brother of her husband and sister-in-law (husband's sister), will be ineligible for selection to the post of Sevika/Sahayika.”

5. Aggrieved by the decision of the selection committee, the writ petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No. 13210 of 2014 contending therein that the emb