1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assails the order Annexure P-1 dated 10.1.2008 by which challenge to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi worker has been upheld by the Collector, thereby cancelling the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 25.10.2007 and correspondingly directing the appointment of respondent No.6 to the said post on the ground that the petitioner was not a resident of Village Moonga Ram Ka Pura where the Anganwadi Centre is situated for which the appointment in question was made. Further challenge is made to the order of Commissioner dated 30.9.2009 Annexure P-2 by which the order of Collector has been upheld. Lastly, challenge is made to Annexure P-3 dated 25.1.2008 by which the respondent No.6 has been appointed as an Anganwadi worker at the said place indisputably, the petitioner is a resident of nearby village namely Mohar Singh Ka Pura.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of final hearing.

3. The sole contention raised by petitioner is that the petitioner’s appointment could not have been found fault with merely because she was not a resident of the village where the appointment has been made. It is submitted that if this course of action is allowed, then it would amount to violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India.

4. No other ground has been raised by the petitioner, though several others have been pleaded in the petition.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand contends that looking to the nature of the work of Anganwadi worker, the policy framed by the State was to the effect that a person had to satisfy the requirement of being resident of village where the appointment is to be made. The said requirement is directly relateable to the nature of work discharged by an Anganwadi worker. If the appointee is a resident of far away place then she would not be able to perform her duties properly which would not be in the public interest.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.6 on the other hand reiterated the stand taken by the State and has drawn the attention of this Court to the document that the petitioner was not a resident of village Moonga Ram Ka Pura was in fact resident of Village Mohar Singh Ka Pura.

7. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner was and is resident and domicile of village Mohar Singh Ka Pura whereas the appointment in question on the post of Anganwadi worker was made at the Anganwadi Centre situated at village Moonga Ram Ka Pura. None of the rival parties are at loggerheads on the said issue.

8. True it is that the guidelines issued laying down the procedure for recruitment, service conditions, termination and remedies available for an Anganwadi worker provide local residence as one of the pre-requisite and eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Anganwadi worker. But the fact remains that the said condition runs contrary to the constitutional mandate under Article 16(1)(2) of the Constitution of India, which for ready reference and convenience is reproduced below :-

16. Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment - (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or nay of them, be ineligible for, or discriminated against in respect of, any employment of office under the State.

(3) Nothing in this article shall prevent Parliament from making any law prescribing, in regard to a class or classes of employment or appointment to an office [under the Government of, or any local or other authority within, a State of Union territory, any requirement as to resident within the State or Union Territory] prior to such employment or appointment.

9. The above said fundamental right prohibits any discriminati