Anjum Ara vs The State Of Bihar

2024 INSC 40 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2233 of 2023)

ANJUM ARA …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The appeal is taken up for hearing.

2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order

dated 28th November 2022 passed by the Division Bench of

the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent

Appeal (LPA) No. 1853 of 2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case

(CWJC) No. 17585 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeal

filed by the present appellant.

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are

Signature Not Verified as under:

Digitally signed by

3.1 On 17th October 2012, District Programme Officer, Narendra Prasad Date: 2024.01.13 12:42:46 IST Reason:

Katihar published a notice for selection of Anganwari

1 Workers/Sevika. Pursuant to the said notice, the present

appellant as well as respondent No. 8 herein applied for the

said post in the selection process. The appellant has secured

80.60, whereas respondent No. 8 has secured 48.60 marks.

The appellant was appointed to the post of Anganwari Sevika

on 2nd July 2013.

3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of

appointment issued in favour of the appellant, respondent

No.8 submitted a representation before the District

Programme Officer, Katihar praying for cancellation of the

order of appointment dated 2 nd July 2013 issued in favour of

the appellant. She also prayed for a direction to issue an

order of appointment in her favour. The same came to be

rejected by the District Programme Officer, Katihar vide order

dated 13th November 2014. Being aggrieved thereby,

respondent No. 8 preferred an appeal before the Appellate

Authority – Court of Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary,

Regional Transport Authority, Purnea. The Appellate

Authority, vide order dated 30 th July 2015, allowed the appeal

filed by respondent No.8 while setting aside the order of

appointment dated 2nd July 2013 issued in favour of the

2 appellant. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ

petition being CWJC No. 17585 of 2015 before the High

Court of Judicature at Patna.

3.3 The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 23 rd August

2016, dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved

thereby, the appellant filed LPA No.1853 of 2016 in CWJC No.

17585 of 2015 before the learned Division Bench of the High

Court. The same was also dismissed vide the impugned

order. Hence, the present appeal.

4. We have heard Mr. Shoeb Alam, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Samir Ali Khan,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the only

ground on which the appellant was held to be disqualified

was that her father was a Panchayat Teacher and he was

drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. It is submitted

that Clause 4.9 of Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011

(hereinafter referred to as “2011 Guidelines”), which imposed

certain restrictions, was found to be in violation of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India by the High Court vide

order dated 27th September 2022 passed in CWJC No. 13210

3 of 2014. It is submitted that, however, this has been ignored

by the learned Division Bench.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State as well as respondent No.8 supported the impugned

judgment and order.

7. We find that both the learned Single Judge and the

Division Bench have grossly erred in dismissing the writ

petition as well as LPA filed by the appellant.

8. Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines imposed a restriction

on such persons whose family member or members have

secured appointment with the State Government or any

organization of the State. The said Clause 4.9 of the 2011

Guidelines came to be challenged before the High Court by

way of CWJC No. 13210 of 2014. The High Court, vide

judgment and order dated 27 th September 2022, after

elaborate discussion, struck down the said Clause 4.9 of the

2011 Guidelines.

9. The only ground on which the appellant has been non-

suited was that the appellant had not challenged the said

Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines before the High Court. We

find that the reasoning as adopted by the learned Division

Bench is totally unsustainable.

4

10. When the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines was

struck down by the High Court vide judgment dated 27 th

September 2022, it ceased to exist. As such, it was not

necessary for the appellant to challenge the validity of the

same inasmuch as the same was already held to be invalid by

the very same High Court. In that view of the matter, we find

that the judgments and orders passed by the learned Single

Judge as well as the Division Bench are not sustainable in

law.

11. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) The appeal is allowed;

(ii) The impugned judgments and orders dated 28 th

November 2022 in LPA No. 1853 of 2016 in CWJC No.

17585 and dated 23rd August 2016 in CWJC No.

17585 of 2015, passed by the High Court of

Judicature at Patna are quashed and set aside;

(iii) The writ petition being CWJC No. 17585 as well as

the appeal being LPA No. 1853 of 2016 filed by the

appellant before the High Court of Judicature at

Patna are allowed by setting aside the order dated

30th July 2015 passed by the Appellate Authority;

and

(iv) The appellant is directed to be reinstated forthwith.

5

12. It is further directed that though the appellant would

not be entitled to wages for the period during which she was

out of employment, she would be entitled to continuity in

service for all other purposes.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in

the above terms.

….……..….......................J. [B.R. GAVAI]

……………..….........................J. [SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 08, 2024.

6