IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17078 of 2018 ==========================================================

CHAUHAN RASILABEN HASMUKHBHAI Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR B N LIMBACHIA(3454) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR. NISARG D SHAH(7299) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR U M SHASTRI(830) for the Respondent(s) No. 6 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5 MR NISARG JAIN for the Respondent(s) No. 2, 4 MS FORUM SUKHADWALA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1, 5 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J. SHELAT Date : 06/02/2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Mr. Nisarg Jain, learned Advocate, has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4. Mr. Jain, learned Advocate, is permitted to file his Vakalatnama in the matter.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Nisarg Jain, learned Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 4. Ms. Forum Bimal Sukhadwala, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 5. Mr. U. M. Shastri, learned Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.6.

3. Heard Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Nisarg Jain, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 4, Ms. Forum Bimal Sukhadwala, learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 5 and Mr. U. M. Shastri, learned Advocate for the respondent No.6.

4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing.

5. The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16, 19 and

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIP MAY BE PLEASED TO allow and admit the petition.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the appointment order at Annexure - A given to the private respondent AND to consider/appoint the petitioner on the Aaganwadi Worker by quashing and setting aside the appointment order at Annexure - A to the private respondents.

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent Authority to take action against the erring officers.

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to award any such other and further relief as may be deemed just and expedient in the interest of justice.”

6. At the outset, Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would submit that despite the petitioner is more qualified than respondent No. 6 herein, she was not given an appointment as an Anganwadi Worker. It is submitted that, as per the advertisement in question, condition No. 11 would indicate that if all candidates are 10th pass, then their further higher qualification and degree would be considered and given preference. It is further submitted that respondent No. 6, in her application form, clearly stated that she is in T.Y.B.A., thereby, she had not completed her graduation. Whereas, the petitioner has completed her graduation in Music.

6.1. Making the above submissions, Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would request this Court to allow the present writ petition.

7. Per contra, Mr. Nisarg Jain, learned Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 4, would submit that from a bare reading of the application form of the petitioner herein, she has completed the H.S.C. examination in March, 2009, whereas, it has been mentioned that she has completed B.A. in Music in October, 2009. This would not possible, as to obtain a Bachelor’s degree, at least three years’ period requires from the date of passing of the H.S.C. examination. Nonetheless, Mr. Jain, learned Advocate, would not be in a position to countenance the appointment of respondent No. 6 herein, inasmuch as he is unable to controvert the educationa