A candidate who voluntarily withdraws a challenge to a recruitment process and seeks to participate in a subsequent one cannot later claim the revival of the superseded process; furthermore, the state may issue fresh advertisements to incorporate revised eligibility criteria if prior processes were not concluded.

BEFORE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

ORDER

01/04/2026

Heard Mr. A M Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. U Sarma, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State respondents.

2. The present writ petition has been instituted assailing an advertisement dated 08.02.2019, issued by the jurisdictional Child Development Project Officer, for engagement of an Anganwadi Worker against No. 110 Singerbond Part-II Anganwadi Center.

3. The petitioner in the present writ petition projects that in pursuance to an advertisement dated 22.07.2013, she had submitted her application for engagement as an Anganwadi Worker in No. 110 Singerbond Part-II Anganwadi Center (hereinafter, referred to as the Anganwadi Center in question).

4. Mr. A M Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner, being a shortlisted candidate in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.07.2013, the respondent authorities were required to take the said selection process to its logical conclusion and in the event, the same was so done, the petitioner, herein, had a chance of being engaged as Angwanwadi Worker against the post advertised. He, however, submits that inspite of the repeated directions passed by this Court in the proceeding so instituted by the petitioner, the respondent authorities had not taken the said process to its logical conclusion and have been issuing one advertisement after the other and the post still remains vacant, as on date.

4.1 In the above premises, Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to conclude the selection process as initiated vide advertisement dated 22.07.2013, by reckoning the eligibility criterias as mandated on the date when the said advertisement was issued and to take the process to its logical conclusion.

5. Ms. U Sarma, learned Government Advocate, submits that the recruitment process as instituted vide advertisement dated 22.07.2013, admittedly not being taken to its logical conclusion, the same was superseded vide advertisement dated 01.01.2016. She submits that the petitioner cannot pray, in the facts and circumstances of the case, for a direction upon the respondent authorities to take the recruitment exercise as initiated vide advertisement dated 22.07.2013, to its logical conclusion. She submits that the petitioner in the present writ petition has not prayed for any direction requiring the recruitment process initiated in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.01.2016 to be taken to its logical conclusion.

5.1 Ms. U Sarma, further submits that no selection having been held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 01.01.2016 and a fresh guidelines having been issued for recruitment against the posts of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper, it was mandated that a fresh advertisement be issued, complying with the fresh guidelines, coming into force. Accordingly, she submits that the advertisement dated 08.02.2019 came to be issued.

5.2 Ms. U Sarma, learned Government Advocate by highlighting that the challenge in the present writ petition being only to the advertisement dated 08.02.2019, submits that the advertisement dated 08.02.2019, was issued incorporating the eligibility criterias coming into force, in the matter, in terms of the Notification dated 25