Babita Vs State of Hp and Others

¶1

( 2025:HHC:23975 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

¶3

LPA No. 359 of 2025 Decided on: 22^nd July, 2025

¶4

__________________________________________________ Babita ....Appellant. Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh & Others

¶6

…Respondents

¶7

__________________________________________________ Coram_ Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

For the Appellant: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate General.

¶10

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral)

¶11

The present Appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP No. 12048 of 2024, whereby the petition filed by the Writ petitioner/appellant herein was dismissed on 19.05.2024.

¶12

The petitioner had filed the Writ petition on the

¶13

ground that the process of selection/interview for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Mandal-II, Ward No.4,

¶14

Gram Panchayat Mandal, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, Himachal

¶15

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

2

¶17

Pradesh has been postponed, delayed and remained in abeyance due to the fault of the respondents and therefore she could not be made to suffer for the same.

¶18

The prayers as such had been made to participate in the selection process/interview for the post of Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Centre Mandal-II, Ward No.4, Gram Panchayat Mandal, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P., slated on 28.10.2024 on the basis of her earlier application dated 14.11.2023 (Annexure P-7); and to declare that the criteria fixed under Annexures P-5 and P-12 for the purpose of determining the cut-off date for age of eligibility was arbitrary and should be taken as 14.11.2023 i.e., date of submitting her application.

¶19

It is pertinent to mention that when the Writ petition was filed i.e. on 25.10.2024, an interim order was passed that the petitioner shall be allowed to participate in the interview on 28.10.2024; and the same shall not create any right or equity in her favour; and the result of the interview shall not be declared without leave of the Court. Thereafter on 25.11.2024, the result of the selection process had been produced before the learned

¶20

Single Judge in a sealed cover, which had been perused.

¶21

3

¶22

We are informed that the petitioner had also made the writ as such for the 2^nd selection process dated 02.10.2024 (Annexure P-14), but since the petition had been dismissed on the ground that she is now overage on account of the 2^nd selection process initiated on 22.10.2024 as she is born on 24.11.1988 and had crossed the age of 35 years by that time.

¶23

The learned Single Judge as such while dismissing the Writ petition came to the conclusion that in the initial advertisement issued on 02.11.2023 (Annexure P-5) a mistake as such, as had been made that the candidates had to be between the age bracket of 18-35 and the cut-off date for determining the age limit had been omitted and there was an error in the advertisement.

¶24

The selection process thus had been cancelled and fresh advertisement had been issued by the respondents on 02.10.2024 (Annexure P-14) providing the cut-off date as 22.10.2024; and therefore it was held that the first Advertisement was not in conformity with the notification dated 24.08.2023; and is defective as such; and the respondents were justified in abandoning the same.

¶25

It has further been noticed by the learned Single

¶26

4

¶27

Judge that the Writ petitioner had crossed the age of 35 years

¶28

on 24.11.2023 as she had attained the age of 35 years on 23.11.2023 and therefore eligibility has to be seen from the last

¶29

date as provided in the advertisement and thus the respondents had bonafide reasons to cancel the selection process. In principle, the decision of the learned Single Judge as such is as per the settled law that the eligibility has to be seen as per the cut-off date prescribed which is sacrosanct. However, what is to be examined is which is correct cut-off date i.e. the one fixed in the advertisement or as per the notification/guidelines which provided that it would be the last date of advertisement.

¶30

However, it is the case of the State that as per

¶31

Advertisement, the cut-off date as such had been fixed as 24.11.2023 while referring to notification dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure P-5) on the basis of which the petitioner had applied and also referring to the corrigendum (Annexure P-6) as such issued on 03.11.2023. A perusal of the said notification as such would go on to show that initially there was a discrepancy as such that the application had to be filed by 25.11.2023; and were to be scrutinized on 01.12.2023; and the age was

¶32

5

¶33

prescribed as per Clause 1 of the said notification between 18 years to 35. However, there was a mistake in the advertisement inasmuch as 24.11.2023 was also mentioned as

¶34

the cut-off date for filing the applications, the same, as mentioned above, was clarified vide corrigendum dated 23.11.2023 and universal date of 24.11.2023 was fixed instead of 25.11.2023 for submitting the applications. It is on this basis, the petitioner had been rendered ineligible, though she had been called for interview, which had been fixed at that point of time, which would be clear from the noting portion, wherein apparently the issue arose as to whether the date of advertisement had to be considered as the cut-off date or 24.11.2023 i.e. the last date for submitting the applications.

¶35

It is not disputed that on 14.11.2023, when the petitioner had applied, she was below the age of 35 years at that point of time. If one is to look at the first notification dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure P-5), the notice as such inviting the applications, a reference is made to the basic guidelines dated 24.08.2023, in pursuance of which, notice was issued. If one is

¶36

to peruse the said notification dated 24.08.2023 (A-1), now placed on record alongwith the Appeal, the scheme and

¶37

6

¶38

guidelines for the engagement of the Anganwari Workers provided that the eligibility criteria had to be seen as on the last date of the advertisement. The relevant clause as such reads as under:

¶39

“4. Eligibility Criteria

¶40

Only such female candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker/Mini Anganwadi Worker or Helper who are:

¶41

a) Normal residents of the feeding area of the concerned Anganwadi Centre.

¶42

If the candidates are not available within the feeder area of Anganwadi Centre, applications can be invited from the desirous candidates residing within the area of the concerned Gram Panchayats of feeder area of the particular Anganwadi Center and if the candidates are not available in the Gram Panchayat concerned of Anganwadi Centre, then applications can be invited from the desirous candidates residing within the adjoining Gram Panchayts which are located in the concerned project.

¶43

b) Minimum prescribed qualification for Anganwadi Worker, Mini Anganwadi worker and Anganwadi Helper shall be 10+2.

¶44

c) Age between 18-35 years as on the last date of advertisement.

¶45

d ) The annual income of the family of candidate does not exceed Rs.50,000/Per annum to be certified/countersigned by an officer not below the rank

¶46

7

¶47

of Naib Tehsildar/ Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate (Exemption of honorarium of Anganwadi Helper from the income criteria if she applies for the post of Anganwadi helper)”.

¶48

This aspect has missed the notice of the learned Single Judge, who proceeded strictly on the terms of the Clause provided in the notice dated 02.11.2023 (Annexure P- 5). It is apparent that the authorities as such have failed to take this aspect into consideration, when they cancelled the selection and initiated a fresh selection process on 02.10.2024.

¶49

The petitioner being well aware of her rights as such immediately approached this Court as noticed above and was granted the permission to participate in the fresh selection process, wherein also she has shown her merit as such; and now only on account of the fact that the Writ petition has been dismissed since she was over-age as per the cut-off prescribed and she has been divested of her right of consideration having crossed the threshold age of 35.

¶50

Though counsel for the State has vehemently argued that there is only right of consideration, while placing reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in Shankarsan Dash

¶51

8

¶52

vs. Union of India , reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47. However, we are of the considered opinion that the said judgment also helps the appellant, as it is held that the Court can step in if there is an arbitrary decision of the State. The relevant paragraph reads as under:-

¶53

“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others, [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others, [1986] 4 SCC 268 and

¶54

9

¶55

Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, [1985] 1 SCR 899.”

¶56

A perusal of the reply of the State as such would also go on to show that the State has highlighted that the cutoff date should be treated as 24.11.2023 and as noticed above, the consultation as such had been held inter se the authorities when the petitioner as such had applied at the initial point of time (Annexure P-13) and thereafter a decision had been taken to cancel the interview process. Once the notification dated 24.08.2023 itself provides the cut-off as the last date of the advertisement, once the notification had been issued on 02.11.2023, there was no further clarification to be taken by the authorities. Therefore the action of the authorities in cancelling the earlier selection process can be held to be arbitrary. There is an admission that the interview was scheduled to be held on 01.12.2023, in which the petitioner was to appear, as per paragraph 5 of the written-statement and telephonic approval had been taken from the SDM at that point of time, for cancelling the selection process by taking the view wrongly that the cut-off date was 24.11.2023.

¶57

10

¶58

Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant as such cannot be faulted as such and therefore she had a valid right of consideration as per the first selection process, which should have been taken to its logical end and having been cancelled midstream, her valuable rights have been affected and she has been pushed out of the zone of consideration being overage on account of the second selection process initiated, whereby she had been rendered ineligible.

¶59

Accordingly, there is violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India to her disadvantage. Resultantly, we are of the considered opinion that the Appeal is liable to be allowed and accordingly we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and allow the Writ petition. The respondents shall continue with the earlier process of selection from the stage it was cancelled and consider the case of the petitioner, keeping in mind the fact that cut-off date such has to be seen from the last date of advertisement, which is

¶60

02.11.2023 as per the notification dated 24.8.2023.

¶61

The argument now raised by the counsel for the State that a fresh candidate has taken over, as per the 2^nd

¶62

11

¶63

advertisement, is without any basis, since the perusal of the orders before the learned Single Judge as such would go on to show that result was not to be declared without leave of the Court vide order dated 25.10.2024 and the same had been produced on 25.11.2024. Thereafter the matter had continued to be adjourned for completing pleadings etc., and eventually the matter was disposed of on 19.05.2025 and the appeal has been filed within time and came up on 18.07.2025 firstly when we asked the State as such as to what were the reasons for cancellation, which have already been mentioned above.

¶64

In such circumstances, if any candidate as such has been appointed, it is on account of mistake on the part of the State as such and therefore it is for the State to take remedial steps to protect the interest of the said candidate, if possible, by adjusting the said person at an appropriate place.

¶65

All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.

¶66

( G.S. Sandhawalia ) Chief Justice

¶67

22^nd July, 2025 ( Ranjan Sharma ) (priti) Judge

Babita v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita v. State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Another Vs All Himachal PWD Iph and Contractual Workers Union and Another

State of Hp Vs Nand Lal and Others

State of Hp and Another Vs Rajinder Kumar and Others

Narender Mehta Vs the State of Hp and Others

Indian Institute of Advance Study Vs S.K. Goel and Another

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp