Appointments made against statutory provisions are void ab initio, and eligibility criteria must be strictly adhered to.

Order :

1. By way of instant writ petition, the petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief(s):

“It is therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:

i. By an appropriate writ order or direction, impugned order dated 24.04014 at Annx.P/13 be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside.

ii. By an order or direction respondents may be directed to take the petitioner on duty on the post of Supervision Women with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances with 9% interest.

iii. Exemplary cost be imposed on the respondents for causing undue harassment to the petitioner.

iv. Any other direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The respondents by passing order impugned dated 24.04.2025 (Annex.P/13) have rejected the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Supervisor on the ground that the petitioner was not working on the post of Anganwadi Worker on the date of advertisement (Annex.P/1).

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Board issued an advertisement dated 13.02.2024 (Annex.P/1) for the post of Supervisor (Women) (Anganwadi Workers), requiring a graduate degree, 10 years of experience as an Anganwadi worker, and a computer qualification as mentioned therein. The petitioner submitted online application (Annex.P/2) along with her qualifications and experience, and received a provisional admit card (Annex.P/3) for the exam held on 22.06.2024. She was selected, with her name appearing at Sr. No.1059 in the merit list dated 20.09.2024 (Annex.4). It is inter alia indicated in the petition that the petitioner holds a BA degree and a RSCIT Certificate and has 17 years and 5 months of experience as an Anganwadi worker (from 26.07.2006 to 08.01.2024). After selection, she obtained the experience certificate dated 14.10.2024 (Annex.P/5) and the NOC from the Forest Department dated 12.11.2024 (Annex.P/6) as she has worked in the Forest Department on the post of Forest Guard from 10.01.2024 to 01.04.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner attended document verification on 27.03.2025, subsequent to which, she was issued an appointment order dated 28.03.2025 (Annex.P/7) and pursuant thereto, the petitioner joined at Merta city on 02.04.2025 on the post of Supervisor and worked until 04.04.2025. On 07.04.2025, she was handed over all the documents and was directed to to seek further directions from Directorate office, Jaipur however, no written order in this regard was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner immediately submitted a representation (Annex.P/9) reiterating her 17 years 5 months’ experience, resignation from the Forest Guard post, and her SC Category and Widow status, requesting permission to continue working. She appeared before the authority again on 08.04.2025 with a similar request, but no relief was granted. On 17.04.2025 (Annex.P/11), she was called to appear for document verification again, and on 22.04.2025 (Annex.P/12), she submitted another representation emphasizing that the advertisement required 10 years’ experience with no condition of continuous service. Subsequently, respondent No.1 cancelled her appointment vide order dated 24.04.2025 (Annex.P/13) on the ground that she was not in continuous service as an Anganwadi worker as on the date of advertisement, rendering her ineligible despite having the required experience. Henc