Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
JYOTSNA REWAL DUA, J.
Babita - Appellant
Versus
The State of Himachal Pradesh and Others - Respondents
CWP No. 12048 of 2024
Decided On : 19-05-2025
(A) Himachal Pradesh ICDS Guidelines - Notification dated 24.08.2023 - Eligibility criteria for Anganwari Workers - The respondents issued an advertisement for appointment but omitted the cut-off date for age eligibility, leading to cancellation of the selection process and issuance of a fresh advertisement. (Paras 1, 2, 3, 4)
(B) Eligibility Criteria - The court held that eligibility must be maintained until the last date of the advertisement, and the petitioner was ineligible as she crossed the age limit on the last date for applying. (Paras 4(i), 4(ii))
(C) Cancellation of Selection Process - The respondents had a valid reason to cancel the selection process due to the omission in the advertisement, which was deemed a material error. (Paras 4(i), 4(ii))
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Anganwari Worker under an advertisement that failed to specify a cut-off date for age eligibility. After realizing the error, the respondents canceled the selection process and issued a new advertisement with a clear cut-off date. The petitioner was ineligible as she crossed the age limit on the last date for applying.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the respondents acted justly in canceling the selection process due to the material error in the advertisement and that the petitioner was not eligible under either advertisement.
Issues: The main issues were whether the respondents were bound to continue the selection process under the first advertisement and whether the petitioner was eligible for the post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that eligibility must be maintained until the last date of the advertisement, and the respondents had valid reasons to cancel the selection process due to the omission of the cut-off date.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
1. The respondents issued an advertisement for appointment of Anganwari Worker. The advertisement was published under a specific notification that spelt out the eligibility criteria including the permissible age limit of the applicant and cut-off date for determining the age eligibility. The advertisement though mentioned the age limit, but omitted to give the cut-off date for determining the age limit. Realizing this material error, the respondents called off the selection process and published a fresh advertisement in conformity with the notification. Thepetitioner, who had applied under the first advertisement, is not eligible under the fresh advertisement, hence, this petition by her.
2. Facts:
(i)The respondents-Social Justice and Empowerment Department on 24.08.2023, notified revised guidelines for appointment of Anganwari Workers/Mini Anganwari Workers/Helpers under the ICDS Programme in Himachal Pradesh. Relevant to the context is the eligibility criteria prescribed in these revised guidelines, more particularly, the age limit for applying for the post of Anganwari Workers/Mini Anganwari Workers/Helpers. Clause 4(c) of the notification dated 24.08.2023 stipulated that ‘only such female candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Anganwari Workers/Mini Anganwari Workers/ Helpers, who are aged between 18-35 years as on the last date of advertisement’.
(ii)Under the revised guidelines notified on 24.08.2023, the respondents issued an advertisement on 02.11.2023, inviting applications for the post of Anganwari Workers/Helpers in different Anganwari Centres including Anganwari Centre Mandal-II. One of the conditions of eligibility in the advertisement was that the candidate should be within the age range of 18-35 years. The last date for applying was 24.11.2023. The cut-off date for satisfying the age-limit was not given in the advertisement.
(iii)Petitioner applied for the aforesaid post on 13.11.2023. It is an admitted position on her part that her date of birth is 24.11.1988 and she had crossed the age of 35 years on 24.11.2023, i.e. the last date for applying under the advertisement.
(iv)The respondents realized the mistake in the advertisement dated 02.11.2023 inasmuch as the advertisement though mentioned the eligibility age to be between 18-35 years, but did not give the cut-off date for determining the maximum age limit. As noticed above, the maximum age-limit in terms of notification dated 24.08.2023 was to be determined as on the last date of advertisement. The petitioner, who would have crossed the age of 35 years on the last date of advertisement, i.e. 24.11.2023, would not have been eligible for the post in question.
(v)Noticing the omission in advertisement dated 02.11.2023, the respondents considered the matter and deferred the selection process. The selection process under advertisement dated 02.11.2023 was finally cancelled on27.08.2024 on the ground that the cut-off date for determining maximum age limit had not been indicated in the advertisement.
(vi)A fresh advertisement was issued by the respondents on 02.10.2024 (Annexure P-14), inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment as Anganwari Workers/Helpers in various Anganwari Centres including Anganwari Centre Mandal-II. The last date for applying under the advertisement dated 02.10.2024 was 22.10.2024. The new advertisement clearly stated that the applicant in order to become eligible, should be within the age-limit of 18-35 years as on 22.10.2024. The petitioner had become overage and could not have applied under the advertisement dated 02.10.2024. Hence, she preferred this writ petition.
(vii)Vide order dated 25.10.2024 passed in this writ petition, the petitioner was provisionally allowed to participate in the interview for the post Anganwari Workers/Helpers scheduled for 28.10.2024 under the new advertisement dated 02.10.2024 for Anganwari Centre Mandal-II, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi. Her result was also pr
Eligibility for appointment must be maintained until the last date of the advertisement; cancellation of selection process due to material error is justified.
Appointment – Right of a candidate for being considered in terms of advertisement stands crystallized on the date of publication of advertisement – Any subsequent amendment to advertisement during co....
The date for age determination in recruitment processes is fixed at the advertisement date and not variable based on the appointment date, ensuring fairness and consistency.
The court established that age relaxation provisions in recruitment rules apply universally to all candidates, ensuring fairness in the selection process.
Eligibility for recruitment can be determined by the date of re-application under revised advertisements, overriding previous cut-off dates.
Eligibility for recruitment can be determined by the date of re-application under revised advertisements, overriding previous cut-off dates.
Cut-off dates in employment advertisements cannot be unilaterally extended; adherence to stipulated timelines ensures fairness in selection processes.
A candidate's eligibility cannot be negated by a subsequent amendment to the cut-off date if they were eligible under the original notification, as per the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Anim....
Procedural violations in the selection of Anganwadi Workers necessitate the conclusion of interrupted selection processes rather than issuing new advertisements, ensuring compliance with fair practic....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
