IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 12 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 6789 of 2015 KIRAN GOSWAMI Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri K.K. Sharma – Advocate for petitioner.

Shri B.M. Patel – Government Advocate for respondent/State.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“(i) That, the impugned notification Annex.P/1 inviting the applications may kindly be quashed.

(ii) That, respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of petitioner for making the appointment of Aaganwadi worker giving her all benefit from the date of entitlement.

(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondents invited applications for filling up the vacancy of Aanganwadi Worker. Petitioner as well as other candidates applied for the same in the year 2007 and since one candidate Smt. Malti Rana was selected illegally, therefore, petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 passed order dated 17.03.2008. The Collector, Gwalior, held by order dated 17.03.2008 that appointment of Smt. Malti Rana was contrary to the policy and the appointment of Smt. Malti Rana was quashed. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that against order dated 17.03.2008 Smt. Malti Rana filed Writ Petition No.1464/2008 and interim order was issued in her favour and on that basis she was retained in employment. Smt. Malti Rana after filing the petition continuously worked as Aanganwadi Karyakarta and thereafter her services were terminated by order dated 15.05.2015 as she was absent for more than two years. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that after order dated 15.05.2015 petitioner submitted representation for consideration of her claim for appointment but respondents did not take any action by considering the case of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that thereafter respondents issued notification Annexure P-1 by which advertisement was issued for appointment of Aanganwadi Karyakarta on 21.09.2015 and last date of submitting the application form was 24.09.2015. Against the said notification/advertisement, petitioner has filed present petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner is contesting for her right to get the appointment on the vacant seat for which she was illegally deprived of and merely on the basis of pendency of matter before the High Court she could not get her legitimate right but respondents by their arbitrary action cannot deny the right of petitioner for which she is entitled to. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that respondents cannot fill up the vacancy merely for the reason that already appointed candidate has been removed. It is submitted that petitioner cannot be forced to face further litigation and respondents should have considered the claim of petitioner taking it as the stay has become inoperative. It is further submitted that respondents cannot take the vacancy of petitioner as vacant once the matter is sub judice before the court. It is further submitted that by order dated 05.05.2016 interim relief has been granted in favour of petitioner to the effect that any appointment on the post of Aanganwadi Worker made during the pendency of the writ petition shall be subject to result of the writ petition. Learned counsel for petitioner, by relying upon para 8 of the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in WP. No.83/2017 [Rajkumar Namdev Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others], submits that petitioner is not required to challenge the subsequent appointment order dated 18.02.2022.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/State submits that the Collector decided the appeal by order dated 17.03.2008 and only appointment of Smt. Malti Rana was quashed/set aside. But there is no direction