Back
1995 Supreme(HP) 36
High Court Of Himachal Pradesh
S.N.PHUKAN,BHAWANI SINGH
SATYA DEVI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - Respondent
C. W. P. No. 20 of 1995
Decided On : 06/22/1995
For the appellant(s)/petitioner(s):Kuldip Singh for the petitioner. For the respondent s):Indar Singh, Advocate General, for respondents 1 and 2.
A condition disqualifying candidates with family members in government service for the post of Anganwari Worker is not arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
ANGAWARI WORKER - SELECTION - SPOUSE IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE - DISQUALIFICATION - VALIDITY - GUIDELINES FOR SELECTION OF ANGWADI WORKERS, CLAUSE 6 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ARTICLES 14 AND 16.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a qualified candidate, applied for the post of Anganwari Worker. However, she was not selected because her husband was employed as a volunteer teacher in the Education Department of the State Government. The petitioner challenged the selection process, arguing that the condition disqualifying candidates with family members in government service was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the condition disqualifying candidates with family members in government service was not arbitrary and was a reasonable measure to ensure that employment opportunities were distributed equitably among families. The court also held that the husband of the petitioner was a government servant, as he was appointed by a selection committee, paid a fixed amount per month, and was under the control of the State Government.
Issues: 1. Whether the condition disqualifying candidates with family members in government service for the post of Anganwari Worker was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 2. Whether the husband of the petitioner was a government servant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the condition was not arbitrary as it aimed to distribute employment opportunities equitably among families. 2. The court held that the husband of the petitioner was a government servant as he was appointed by a selection committee, paid a fixed amount per month, and was under the control of the State Government.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
S. N. Phukan, C. J.—In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petitioner Smt. Satya Devi has prayed for an appropriate writ of mandamus inter alia for quashing condition No. 6 at Annexure P-3 and condition No. 4 at Annexure P-5 to the writ petition on the ground that the said conditions are illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and further for directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker as she is duly qualified for the job.
2. Briefly stated, the facts areas follows: A post of Anganwari Worker fell vacant at Anganwari Centre, Bela. The petitioner applied for the said post alongwith others and she was interviewed on 22nd September, 1994. The petitioner, however, was not selected for the post. As no suitable candidate was found, respondent No. 3, namely, the Child Development Project Officer, Shillai called for fresh applications. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. In the reply affidavit filed by the Director Social and Womens Welfare, Himachal Pradesh on behalf of the respondents, it has been urged that the petitioner was not found suitable for the post as her husband was already employed as a volunteer teacher in the Education Department of the State Government. It has also been stated that for the post of helper in Anganwari Centre, Bela, one person was selected and the petitioner neither applied for the post nor attended the interview.
4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
5. The guidelines for selection of Anganwari Workers have been annexed as Annexure P-3 to the writ petition Clause 6 of the said guide lines inter alia provides that at the time of selection of Anganwari Workers, it should be specifically ensured that none of the family member of the applicant is in the Government/semi Government service. There is no dispute that the petitioner is qualified for the post. Therefore, the only question that has to be determined is whether the husband of the petitioner being a volunteer teacher can be said to be in employment of the Government vis-a-vis the petitioner.
6. The appointment letter of the husband of the petitioner including the scheme for volunteer teachers have been annexed to the rejoinder vide Annexure P-6/A.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the husband of the petitioner is neither a Government servant nor is holding any post as would appear from Rule 2 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 more particularly Clause (h) of the said Rules. This Rule defines "Government servant" a person who is a member of a service or holds a civil post under the Union. It is not necessary to quote other provisions of the said clause. Whether a volunteer teacher is a Government servant or not shall be discussed in view of the law laid down by the apex Court. We may mention here that though as per the scheme of volunteer teachers, the period is only for two years, the appointment letter was issued to the husband of the petitioner on l*th February, 1992 who is still in service and is getting honorarium of Rs, 625 per month. We have been informed at the Bar that the above amount has since been increased We have also been informed at the Bar that so long Himachal Pradesh Volunteer Teachers Scheme, 1992 continues the husband of the petitioner will remain in service and he has got a chance to be regularised as a permanent teacher alongwith others.
8. Our attention has been drawn to the decision of the apex Court in The State of Assam and others v. Kanak Chandra Dutta, AIR 1967 SC 884. In that case the question came up as to whether a Mauzadar in the State of Assam is a Government servant or not. A Mauzadar in Assam collects revenue in the State and he is not entitled to get full time salary but only entitled to get commission out of the revenue collected by him for the State Government. The apex Court held that a Mauzadar is a holder of civil post un
