Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 754
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ, Bipin C. Negi, J
TARA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS – Respondent
LPA No. 837 of 2025 | CWP No. 6984 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Devender Kumar
For the Respondents: Priyanka Chauhan
The right of an Anganwari Helper to be considered for promotion under Rule 5 of the 2010 Notification takes precedence over the recommendatory provision for transfer/adjustment of workers on marriage grounds under Rule 4, as promotion constitutes a legitimate expectation of the employee.
Headnote:The case involves the interpretation of the Notification dated 19.06.2010, specifically Rule 4 and Rule 5, regarding the appointment of Anganwari Workers. A writ petitioner, who had served as an Anganwari Helper for over 24 years, sought promotion to the post of Anganwari Worker upon a vacancy arising on 30.04.2024. However, the appellant was transferred to the same center on 16.07.2024 on the grounds of marriage. The court found that the right of a qualified helper to be considered for promotion takes precedence over a transfer request. The central issue is whether the right to be considered for promotion under Rule 5 outweighs the adjustment of a worker on marriage grounds under Rule 4. The court reasoned that the right of consideration for promotion is a "legitimate expectation of an employee" and that while Rule 5 provides a first opportunity for promotion, Rule 4 is "not mandatory bCut only recommndatory." Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice
(Oral)
Challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 6984 of 2024, titled as Sujata Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others, on 19.05.2025, whereby directions were issued to the respondents to give appointment/promotion to the writ petitioner as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kashpo with effect from the due date, i.e. 01.05.2024, alongwith all consequential benenfits.
The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, had passed the orde r against the respondent No. 5-appellant herein, who had been transferred vide 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) on account of her marriage at Village Kashpo.
The State huas apparently not filed an appeal and the present appeal has been filed by Tara Devi- respondent No. 5 in the writ petition as such on the ground that since she was married in Village Kashpo, therhefore, as per her request, her posting had been gdone on 16.07.2024 (Annexure P-3) by way of transfer ias such at the said place.
The writ petitioner as such had relied upon Notification dated 19.06.2010 (Annexure P-2), which has also been referred to by the learned Single Judge, whereby Rule 5 states that the Anganwari Helper has to be given first opportunity to be appointed as Worker, if she fulfills the minimum prescribed educational qualification for Anganwari Workers and no advertisement would be required.
The learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Rule 4 of the said Notification which provides that if there exists a vacancy at the place of her husband’s normal place of res idence/place of marriage, she can be adjusted on her request within one month of date of arising of vacancy. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant had been rightly posted.
The learneud Single Judge has noticed that the writ petitioneor was appointed as Anganwari Helper at AnganwaCri Centre Kashpo way back on 06.08.2000 and had completed more than 24 years of service as such at the said Centre and the post fell vacant only on 30.04.2024, and therefore, she had a right to be iconsidered for promotion.
Apparently, on representation of the present appellant, her transfer order was passed on 16.07.2024 taking away the vested right of promotion of the writ petitioner, which was accordingly held not to be justified by the learned Single judge, by placing reliance upon Rule 5 . The said Rule 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 educatiHonal qualification for AWWs and no advertisement will be required.”
The learned Single had also gone through the record produced by the St ate which showed that on the basis of a D.O Noter dated 13.06.2024, one Babita Devi working as Anganwari Worker Kharogla, had been transferred to Anganwari Centre Karchham and resultantly, the present appellant had also been transferred from Anganwari Centre Karchham to Anganwari Centre Kashpo. The writ petitioner thus continued to work as Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Kashpo and thus, had approached this Court to seek promotion to the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre Kashpo from the due date, i.e. 01.05.2024, with all consequential benefits.
Hence, once Rule 5 as such provides that 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 and the Rule 4 provides that if there exists a vacancy at the place of her husband’s normal place of residence/pla ce of marriage, she can be adjusted on her request within one month of the date of arising of
