Solanki Shilpaben Bharatkumar vs State Of Gujarat

Gujarat High Court

Solanki Shilpaben Bharatkumar vs State Of Gujarat on 6 August, 2025

                                                                                                                    NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/SCA/21618/2017                                         ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025

                                                                                                                    undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                     R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21618 of 2017

                      ==========================================================
                                               SOLANKI SHILPABEN BHARATKUMAR
                                                            Versus
                                                   STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      A B PATEL(7467) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
                      MS KRISHNA D DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                      RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
                      ==========================================================
                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

                                                           Date : 06/08/2025

                                                            ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is challenging the appointment order of the respondent No.5 as an Anganwadi worker.

2. It is not in dispute both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 have the same qualifications and it is further not in dispute that the respondent No.5 does possess higher merit than the petitioner.

3. It is however the contention of the petitioner that she is a resident of Pandavania-1, whereas the respondent No.5 is a resident of Pandavania-3 and as a consequence, preference ought to have been given to the petitioner.

4. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that once an Anganwadi, specified as Pandavania-1 is notified calling for applications to appoint an Anganwadi worker, the residents of Pandavania-1 alone should be preferred over residents of Pandavania-2 or Pandavania-3.

NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21618/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined

5. It is not in dispute that in the village of Pandavania, there are three Anganwadis, for which three Anganwadi workers appointed. In this particular case, we are concerned with the appointment of Anganwadi worker for Pandavania-1.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that as per the Aadhar card of the respondent No.5, it is clear that she was a resident of Pandavania-1 and this has also been confirmed by the fact that the Election photo Identity card also indicates that she is a resident of Pandavania-1.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, seeks to contend that the Ration card of the respondent No.5 indicates that she is a resident of Navi Nagari and also the letter addressed by her also indicates her address as being a resident of Nava Nagari.

8. Learned counsel placed reliance on Clause (3) of the notification, which according to him, stipulates that the candidates of the local area are to be preferred.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.5 does not dispute that Clause-(3) does indicate that preference should be accorded to the residents of that particular Anganwadi and only if candidates from that Anganwadi are unavailable, candidates from other Anganwadi areas can be appointed.

10. It is to be stated here that for the purpose of appointing an Anganwadi worker in a village which contains more than one Anganwadi, if the applicant is a resident in the village, that would suffice to consider one applicant to be a resident of the local area. To contend that the candidate should be a resident only of the area Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:23:32 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/21618/2017 ORDER DATED: 06/08/2025 undefined under which the Anganwadi operates, would be a far-fetched argument, since the entire village would have to be considered as a local area.

11. In my view, having regard to the fact that there are documents indicating that the respondent No.5 was a resident of Pandavania-1, the appointment of the respondent No.5 who possessed higher merit cannot be found fault with.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Parmar Bhavnaben Narvatbhai v. State of Gujarat reported in 2021 (0) AIJEL-HC 243340. However, the same would be of no avail since in that particular case, the Coordinate Bench merely reiterated the general principle that selection process should be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure and there cannot be any relaxation in the terms and conditions of advertisement.

13. In this case, as already noticed above, the only requirement was that the candidate should be within the local area, i.e. within the village, and the respondent No.5 being a resident of Pandavania-1 as per the Aadhar card as well as the EPIC, this judgment would have no application to the facts of present case.

14. The petition is therefore, DISMISSED. Rule is discharged.

Sd/-

(NSSG,J) OMKAR Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by OMKAR C. MAHAWAR(HC00201) on Fri Aug 08 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Aug 09 00:23:32 IST 2025