Supreme Court clarifies eligibility criteria for Anganwadi Sevika post: Rekha Bharati vs. State of Bihar (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: November 15, 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 735

Judges: R. Subhash Reddy, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a married daughter of a government employee be deemed ineligible for the post of Anganwadi Sevika based on guidelines that disqualify relatives of government servants? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning appointments in Bihar. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of guidelines that seemingly barred relatives of government employees from being appointed as Anganwadi Sevikas. The court had to determine whether these guidelines applied to married daughters of government servants. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, with Justice R. Subhash Reddy authoring the opinion.

Case Background

In 2006, an advertisement was released by the Gram Panchayat Mirapur for the appointment of an Anganwadi Sevika. A merit list was prepared, placing the 9th respondent at the first position and the appellant at the second position. Initially, the appellant was appointed, but this appointment was challenged by the 9th respondent.

Based on the complaint, the District Programme Officer cancelled the appellant’s appointment on January 9, 2008. The High Court, in CWJC No. 3408 of 2008, quashed the termination and directed the District Magistrate to pass a fresh order after hearing both parties.

On March 20, 2013, the District Magistrate, relying on Clause 3(Anga) of the guidelines dated October 3, 2006, held that the 9th respondent was ineligible because her father was a government teacher. This order was upheld by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, on October 30, 2013. The 9th respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court, challenging these orders.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The 9th respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Patna, challenging the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on September 7, 2016, setting aside the orders that had declared the 9th respondent ineligible.

The appellant then filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 1988 of 2016, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on April 26, 2017, affirming the decision of the Single Judge. The appellant, aggrieved by this, approached the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The appointments of Anganwadi Sevikas were governed by guidelines issued in 2006, known as “Margdarshika – 2006”. Clause 3 of these guidelines specified the qualifications and conditions for selection. Clause 3(E) is particularly relevant to this case, which states:

“Public Servant, Head, Member of Panchayat Samiti / Ward Member / Member of District Council, etc., themselves or their relatives, sellers of the various public articles (such as Public Distribution System vendor, Mobile Kerosene Oil Dealer, Inter-Departmental post office employee, etc.) relatives such as daughter / wife / daughter-in-law of the Govt. and semi–govt. Servants, will not be selected for this post.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the 9th respondent was ineligible for appointment as her father was a government teacher.
• The appellant contended that the District Magistrate and the Appellate Authority correctly cancelled the 9th respondent’s appointment based on Clause 3(E) of the guidelines.
• The appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge had misconstrued the guidelines by allowing the writ petition of the 9th respondent.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the 9th respondent, being a married daughter, was residing at her matrimonial home in Muzaffarpur, while her paternal home was in Vaishali.
• The respondents submitted that the father of the 9th respondent was posted in Vaishali, and therefore, Clause 3(E) of the guidelines should not apply to her.
• The respondents contended that the High Court had rightly interpreted the guidelines, and there were no grounds to interfere with the impugned order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in interpreting Clause 3(E) of the guidelines to mean that it applies only to unmarried daughters of government servants, and not to married daughters.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following:

• Clause 3(E) of the guidelines issued on 03.10.2006, which specifies the ineligibility criteria for the post of Anganwadi Sevika.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Clause 3(E) of the guidelines issued on 03.10.2006* and stated that the clause is to be construed as it reads, without drawing any distinction between married and unmarried daughters.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the literal interpretation of the guidelines. The Court emphasized that the guidelines did not differentiate between married and unmarried daughters of government servants. The Court’s reasoning focused on ensuring that the guidelines were applied as they were written, without any deviation. The Court also highlighted that the guidelines were applicable at the time of the selection process, and any subsequent changes could not be applied retrospectively.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation that the guidelines only applied to unmarried daughters. The Court reasoned that the guidelines were clear and did not provide any basis for such a distinction. The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting the guidelines as they are written, without adding any qualifications or exceptions.

The Court stated, “No distinction can be drawn between a married daughter and unmarried daughter for the purpose of considering the eligibility as per the guidelines.”

The Court further observed, “When the criteria is notified in the guidelines such guidelines have to be interpreted as it is without deviating the same keeping in mind the facts of a particular case.”

The Court also noted, “Even the Division Bench has not considered the guidelines in proper perspective and affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge.”

Key Takeaways

• Guidelines for appointments must be interpreted literally, without adding or subtracting from their explicit terms.
• The marital status of a daughter does not alter her eligibility if the guidelines explicitly include “daughter” as a category.
• Courts should not deviate from the plain meaning of guidelines based on specific facts of a case.
• The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to the guidelines as they exist at the time of selection.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the respondent authorities to:

• Issue a fresh notification for the appointment of Anganwadi Sevika for the center in question.
• Conduct a fresh selection process as per the guidelines currently in force.
• Allow the appellant and the 9th respondent to apply for the post, and consider their claims along with other candidates.
• Allow the 9th respondent to continue as Anganwadi Sevika until a fresh selection is made.

Specific Amendments Analysis

(Omitted as the judgment does not discuss any specific amendments)

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that guidelines for appointments must be interpreted literally, and no distinction can be made between married and unmarried daughters if the guidelines do not specify such a distinction. This judgment clarifies that courts should not deviate from the explicit terms of the guidelines based on the specific facts of a case. It also reinforces the principle that the guidelines applicable at the time of selection should be followed. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the case clarifies the interpretation of service guidelines.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The Court held that the guidelines for the appointment of Anganwadi Sevikas should be interpreted literally, and no distinction should be made between married and unmarried daughters of government servants if the guidelines do not specify such a distinction. The Court directed the authorities to conduct a fresh selection process, allowing both the appellant and the 9th respondent to apply. This judgment reinforces the principle of strict adherence to the terms of service guidelines.