Engagement as an Anganwadi worker under the ICDS welfare scheme is non-statutory and does not constitute a civil post; therefore, disputes regarding selection, merit, or eligibility are generally not maintainable under writ jurisdiction.

ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)

4 09-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present intra court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10524 of 2017, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed.

3. The present dispute arises out of the selection/appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika for Ward No. 9, Anganwari Centre No. 153, situated at Village Phulout (West), District Madhepura. The appellant claims to be a permanent resident of the said ward, belonging to the Extremely Backward Class, possessing requisite educational qualifications and higher merit. It is her case that she had the support of the majority of beneficiaries in the general body meeting dated 23.08.2014 and was the most suitable for the said post.

4. The dispute essentially relates to the selection of Respondent No. 10, who, according to the appellant, does not belong to Ward No. 9 and was, therefore, ineligible. It is further alleged that the selection process suffered from irregularities and violation of Government guidelines, particularly with respect to ward-based eligibility and beneficiary support. Despite this, Respondent No. 10 was selected and appointed, and the appellant’s candidature was ignored. The petitioner challenges the said selection as well as the subsequent orders affirming it, contending that material facts and statutory requirements were ignored.

5. In the writ petition, the appellant had sought the following reliefs:

“1. For issuance of Certiorari, setting aside the Order dated 24.04.2017, passed by the District Magistrate, Madhepura vide Anganbari Appeal No. 42 of 2014 affirming the Order dated 16.12.2014, passed by the District Programme Officer, Madhepura by which petitioner’s case has been dismissed.

2. For issuance of Mandamus, directing the Respondent authority concerned to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Anganwari Phulout (West) Ward No. 9 under Gram Panchayat Phulout Block Chousa in District Madhepura.”

6. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the said writ petition, observed as follows:

“In view thereof, the writ petition would not lie with regard to the selection process of Anganwadi worker and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, while dismissing the writ petition, it is observed that if the petitioner still feels aggrieved, she may approach the competent authority.”

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that an appointment which is illegal and void ab initio cannot be sustained merely on the ground of continuation. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 10 was not a resident of Ward No. 9 and thus did not satisfy the essential eligibility criteria. It is further submitted that relevant materials, including the voter list and applicable guidelines, were not properly considered, thereby vitiating the selection process.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits that the selection of Respondent No. 10 was made strictly in accordance with the governing guidelines. It is submitted that Respondent No. 10 fulfilled all eligibility conditions, including residence, category requirement, and merit position. The appellant’s claim was duly considered and rejected by the District Programme Officer, which decision was affirmed by the District Magistrate. It is thus submitted that no illegal