Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 492
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Sujata Devi - Appellant
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
CWP No. 6984 of 2024
Decided On : 19-05-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sanjeev Bhushan, Sohail Khan
For the Respondents: Rajat Choudhry, Kailash Chand Negi, Chaman Negi, Anju Negi
The petitioner has a right to promotion as Anganwari Worker under the guidelines, which the respondents unlawfully denied.
Headnote:
(A) Guidelines for Appointment of Anganwari Workers/Helpers under ICDS Programme - Notification dated 19.06.2010 - Petitioner, an Anganwari Helper, entitled to first opportunity for promotion to Anganwari Worker position at Kashpo Centre due to vacancy - Respondents unlawfully transferred another worker instead of promoting the petitioner. (Paras 1, 2, 4, 5)
(B) Right to Promotion - The petitioner had a clear right to be promoted as Anganwari Worker as per the guidelines, which were not contested by the respondents. (Paras 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner has served as Anganwari Helper for over 24 years and was denied promotion despite fulfilling qualifications when a vacancy arose. Respondent No.5 was transferred instead of promoting the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner was unlawfully denied promotion and directed her appointment as Anganwari Worker effective from 01.05.2024 with all benefits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to promotion as Anganwari Worker under the guidelines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner had a right to promotion based on the clear provisions of the notification, which the respondents failed to acknowledge.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
1. Petitioner is presently serving as Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Kashpo, District Kinnaur. She feels aggrieved by transfer of respondent No.5 (Smt. Tara Devi) as Anganwari Worker from Anganwari Centre Rakchham, District Kinnaur to Anganwari Centre Kashpo, District Kinnaur. Petitioner’s case is that respondent No.5 could not have been transferred as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kashpo and instead it was the petitioner, who was to be given first opportunity to be appointed as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kashpo in terms of notification dated 19.06.2010.
2. From the joint submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the position that emerges is as under:-
(i)Petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Kashpo, District Kinnaur on 06.08.2000. She has by now completed more than 24 years of service at this Anganwari Centre as Anganwari Helper. A post of Anganwari Worker fell vacant at Anganwari Centre Kashpo on 30.04.2024.
(ii)The respondents issued a notification on 19.06.2010, amending the guidelines for the appointment of Anganwari Workers/Helpers under ICDS Programme in Himachal Pradesh notified on 05.10.2009 and 08.01.2010. Under the amendment carried out in terms of notification dated 19.06.2010, inter alia, proviso to Rule 5 was added, which reads as under:-
“Rule 5 i.e. Advertisement of Vacancies:-
Following provision to be added:-
Provided, where the post of AWW has fallen vacant due to any reason and the matter is not sub judice the Anganwadi Helper shall be given first opportunity to be appointed as Worker if, she fulfills the minimum prescribed educational qualification for AWWs and no advertisement will be required.”
As per the above proviso, if in an Anganwari Centre, post of Anganwari Worker falls vacant due to any reason and the matter is not sub-judice, then the Anganwari Helper working in the said Anganwari Centre shall be given first opportunity to be appointed as Anganwari Worker, provided she fulfills the minimum prescribed educational qualification for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker. No separate advertisement in this regard would be required.
(iii)As noticed earlier, the petitioner was working as Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Kashpo. It is not in dispute that the petitioner possessed minimum prescribed educational qualification for appointment as Anganwari Worker. In terms of proviso to Rule 5 of the Scheme for appointment of Anganwari Workers/Helpers, the petitioner was to be given first opportunity to be appointed as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kashpo. Instead of giving the petitioner the aforesaid opportunity, to which she was entitled to under notification dated 19.06.2010, the official respondents transferred respondent No.5-Smt. Tara Devi from Anganwari Centre Rakchham, District Kinnaur to Anganwari Centre Kashpo.
(iv)Respondent No.5-Smt. Tara Devi was resident of Rakchham, District Kinnaur and had solemnized marriage with one Sh. Subhash Chand S/o Sh. Daya Ram, resident of Village Kashpo on 19.08.2004. Respondent No.5 had been serving as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Rakchham prior to her marriage. It appears that on becoming aware of vacancy of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kashpo, respondent No.5 applied for her transfer against that post on 24.05.2024.
(v)The record produced by the respondents during hearing of the case reveals that the official respondents though had been considering the case of the petitioner for her appointment/promotion as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kashpo, but on the basis of a D.O. note dated 13.06.2024, one Smt. Babita Devi, serving as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kharogla, was ordered to be transferred to Anganwari Centre Karchham, District Kinnaur and to accommodate said Smt. Babita Devi, respondent No.5-Tara Devi, was transferred from Anganwari Centre Karchham to Anganwari Centre Kashpo, District Kinnaur. The consequence of above
