Gujarat High Court
Nishaben D/O Kalubhai Damor vs State Of Gujarat on 26 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15258 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
NISHABEN D/O KALUBHAI DAMOR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1-STATE
MR. R.D.KINARIWALA(6146) for the Respondent(s) No. 2-DDO
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 26/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate for the respondent and learned AGP waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective respondents. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard at length for final hearing.
2. The present petition is filed by the petitioner for seeking the following reliefs:
"8. (A) Quash and set aside the final Merit list at Annexure-G to this petition and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to prepare a fresh merit list, as Page 1 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined per its policy, by granting appropriate weightage to the educational qualifications of the petitioner, and / or (B) Quash and set aside the action of the respondent authorities of treating the petitioner as ineligible for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post by revising the final merit list, as per its policy, by granting appropriate weightage to the educational qualifications of the petitioner, and (C) Direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of Anganwadi Worker pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-B to this petition, and (D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to revise the final merit list at Annexure-G to this petition by provisionally considering the case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post by granting appropriate weightage to the educational qualifications of the petitioner, and (E) Award the cost of this petition, and (F) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.Page 2 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined (G) Quash and set aside the appointment order dated 9.11.2020, Annexure-K to this petition, whereby respondent No. 4 came to K be appointed to the post of Aanganwadi Worker, and (H) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the operation and implementation and further execution of the impugned order dated 9.11.2020, and"
3. Brief facts as stated in the memo of the petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of the petitioner in this petition that on 11.8.2020, the respondent No.2 - District Development Officer, Aravalli issued an advertisement inviting online applications for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Workers. By the said advertisement in all, 73 posts were sought to be filled in. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the petitioner is having educational qualifications of (i) Diploma in Engineering (ii) Bachelor's Degree in Home Science B.Sc. (Home Science) (iii) Masters Degree in Home Science-M.Sc. (Home Science) (iv) CCC course (iv) 30 days internship in MNB Public Balwadi (v) Certificate of Methods and Materials for working with Children (vi) certificate of Dietetics and Nutrition, etc. It is further the case of the Page 3 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined petitioner in this petition that on 27.8.2020, as the petitioner was fulfilling necessary eligibility criteria prescribed in the advertisement, she had submitted her online application form for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Bhujar- 1 Anganwadi, which is at a distance of just 20 Meters from the residence of the petitioner. Petitioner belongs to SEBC category, so she applied in the said category. 3.2 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that in September 2020, the respondent authority published the merit list as well as list of ineligible candidates on its website. Name of the petitioner was included in the list of ineligible candidates. The reason for the same was stated to be that the petitioner has not uploaded the Mark-sheet of Semester I and II. It was further stated that, the documents regarding passing of Diploma/ Degree course after standard-12 are false. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that as the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner was absolutely incorrect and was contrary to the material on record, the petitioner immediately preferred an Appeal before the District Development Officer, Aravalli on 15.9.2020. Having found substance in the appeal of the petitioner, the respondent authority included the name of the petitioner in the revised merit list with merit of 45.32 marks at Merit Rank No.3.
Page 4 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined 3.3 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that the said merit calculation is also absolutely illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as the petitioner possesses the highest educational qualification from amongst all the other candidates who have applied for appointment on the post in question. However, the petitioner is not granted the marks as per her entitlement, which should be 65.85.
3.4 It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that in November, 2020, to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, the respondent authorities once again published/ uploaded the first merit list on its website, whereby the name of the petitioner is not included in the merit list. Candidate with merit of 38.86 is placed at Sr. No:
1 in the merit list. This is even without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner in this petition that even if the wrong merit marks of the petitioner i.e. 45.32 (which actually ought to have been 65.85 marks) as per the respondent authority is taken into consideration, the petitioner would have been standing at Merit Rank No: 1 in the said Merit list. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent authority of rejecting the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker, the present petition has been Page 5 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined preferred.
4. Heard Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State.
5.1 Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the grounds made in the memo of the petition in paragraph 4 and has submitted that the impugned action on the part of the respondent authority is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory, which is evident from the fact that pursuant to the representation of the petitioner, her name came to be included in the merit list and the respondent authority ought to have appreciated that the petitioner had not only completed her Graduation but has also completed her Post-Graduation in Home Science.
Therefore, when the petitioner has already completed her graduation and had also appeared in the last semester of Post-Graduation (M.Sc.) in the month of March, 2020, there was no reason for the petitioner not to upload the mark-
sheet of the semester-I and II out of the total 6 semesters.
However, it appears that as the petitioner was granted exemption in various subjects in semester-I and semester-II, the respondent authority was misdirected in not considering Page 6 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the same. This mistake was subsequently rectified by the respondent authority itself by considering the petitioner as an eligible and meritorious candidate. He has further submitted that the petitioner is having the highest educational qualification and merit in the list of eligible applicants for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker at Bhujar-1 Anganwadi. However, for the reasons best known, firstly the petitioner was considered to be ineligible and upon representation of the petitioner, she was treated as eligible but was granted very less marks then her entitlement. Thus, it appears that the action of the respondent authority lacks bonafide, in as much as though much more qualified and meritorious candidate is available for appointment, less meritorious candidates are selected for appointment and the petitioner is treated to be ineligible and, therefore, when the action of the respondent authorities in the matter of public employment is not bonafide, the indulgence of this is prayed for. He has submitted that though the petitioner was considered eligible and meritorious upon the appeal being presented by her, the action of the respondent authorities of excluding the candidature of the petitioner by once again treating her as ineligible is absolutely high handed action on the part of the respondent authorities. He has further submitted that it is a matter of record that at the time of submitting online application form in the month of August, Page 7 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined 2020, the petitioner had already appeared in the final semester examination of M.Sc. in Home Science. However, the result was awaited as there was delay in publication of the same due to the pandemic of Covid-2019. However, when the petitioner had already appeared in the final year B.Sc.
examination much before submitting the online application form and when the result is already declared by the University before the final merit list is published by the respondent authority, the same is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of merit calculation.
5.2 He has further submitted that the respondent authority has without application of mind once again published the earlier result as the final result. Therefore, the action of the respondent authority cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.He has further submitted that it is pertinent to note that as per the latest merit list, the first candidate has secured 38.86 merit marks, whereas even if the wrong merit marks of the petitioner i.e. 45.32 (which actually ought to have been 65.85 marks) is taken into consideration, the petitioner would have been standing at Merit Rank No: 1. He has further submitted that the action of the respondent authority of appointing respondent No. 4, a less meritorious candidate, to the post in question is absolutely illegal arbitrary and discriminatory. In view of the above, he has prayed to allow Page 8 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined this petition.
6.1 Per contra, Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 has strongly opposed the submissions made at the bar by learned advocate for the petitioner and has drawn the attention of this Court towards the affidavit-
in-reply filed by respondent-DDO and has submitted that the Government of India has introduced a Welfare Scheme for the Women and Young Children known as Integrated Child Development Scheme and the same is implemented throughout the country through State Governments. He has also submitted that the District Panchayats are administering the Integrated Child Development Scheme for the respective districts. He has also submitted that Anganwadi Centres are established throughout the State of Gujarat for implementation of the Scheme and the Anganwadi Workers and Helpers are selected on honorary basis and paid honorarium as per the Government Policy. He has further submitted that one of the advertised posts was of Anganwadi Worker for Anganwadi Centre at Bhujar, Taluka Meghraj, District Arvalli and the petitioner was among in all 12 applicants for the post of honorary Anganwadi Worker at Bhujar in response to that advertisement, but on scrutiny in all, nine applications were rejected by the Child Development Project Officer, Meghraj Unit-1 as a Competent Authority and Page 9 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the application of the petitioner was also rejected as it was incomplete and misleading owing to discrepancies. He has also submitted that the petitioner in her online application referred to Post Graduation course and marks secured in 1st and 2nd Semester, but didn't provide details about 3rd and 4th Semesters as well as the mark-sheets thereof were not uploaded. It is submitted that the applicants were expected to provide details of the course completed by them. It is also submitted that the application of the petitioner was referring to Post Graduate Course, which was not completed and there was no details about the marks obtained in 3 rd and 4 th Semesters. He has further relied on Clause 7.6 of the Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019 issued by the Respondent No.1 and has submitted that the respondent No.3 was instructed by her to generate merit list of the eligible candidates as she is a Competent Authority for appointments and accordingly a merit list dated 11 th September, 2020 was published.
6.2 He has further submitted that the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Appellate Committee headed by District Development Officer, Arvalli District Panchayat as per the provisions of Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was allowed and therefore, second merit list was generated on 20.10.2020 and Page 10 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the name of the Petitioner appeared in the said list.
However, grievances were raised before the higher authority i.e. Commissioner of Child Development, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar by the Applicants whose placement in the merit list was changed because of acceptance of appeals by the Appellate Committee. It is submitted that therefore a report was called from District Development Officer, Arvalli District Panchayat through a letter dated 22.10.2020 and immediately the details were made available by the District Development Officer, Arvalli District Panchayat as well as Programme Officer, Arvalli District Panchayat on 23.10.2020 and 26.10.2020. It is stated that after taking into consideration the factual aspect as well as the provisions of Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019, it was communicated by the Commissioner, Women and Child Development through an order dated 26.10.2020 that correction in applications at subsequent stage is contrary to the provisions of G.R. dated 25.11.2019 and as such it is to strictly adhere to the resolution and therefore, a fresh merit lists be prepared. He has also submitted that in view of this, a third merit list dated 03.11.2020 was published and the name of the Petitioner was excluded owing to discrepancy in her application form and a copy of the said list is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-G. The Respondent No.2 submits that the name of the Petitioner is not on merit list Page 11 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined dated 03.11.2020 considering discrepancy in her online application and the order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Women and Child Development, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar. He has also submited that the provisions of Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019 are required to be strictly followed in case of discrepancies in such online applications are not to be accepted. Hence, rejection of the application of the Petitioner is just and legal and in consonance with the provisions of G.R. dated 25.11.2019. It is submitted that the meritorious candidate Sitaben J. Parmar is issued an appointment order and she has reported for duty.
6.3 Lastly, he has relied upon the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by this Court rendered in Special Civil Application No. 13684 of 2020 and allied matter and has submitted that identical facts are there in the present petition comparing to the aforesaid petition.
6.4 In view of overall above, he has prayed to dismiss this petition.
7. Mr. Parth Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State has supported the contentions raised by Mr. R.D. Kinariwala, learned advocate for the Page 12 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined respondent No.2 and has submitted that appropriate order may be passed considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In rejoinder, Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the facts of aforesaid petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 13684 of 2020 are different from the facts of the present case and, therefore, the aforesaid order dated 17.07.2025 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13684 of 2020 may not squarely applicable to the present case.
9.1 I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. It transpires that the facts of the present case are almost identical with the facts of Special Civil Application No. 13684 of 2020, which is relied on by learned advocate for the respondent-DDO and decided by this Court.
9.2 Considering the above-mentioned discussion of the merits of the matter, I found that the order dated 17.07.2025 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 13684 of 2020, which is relied by learned advocate for the respondent-DDO, is applicable to the facts of the present case and the present petition is required to be decided considering the aforesaid order. The said order dated 17.07.2025 reads as under:
Page 13 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined "1. Both the petitions are filed by the petitioners for appointment to the post of Anganwadi workers / Tedagars on the basis of being local area candidate.
2. Heard learned advocates.
3. It is reported that the issue involved in these petitions have already been decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.09.2023 recorded on Special Civil Application No.15212 of 2020. Therefore, the prayers made in these petitions need not be adjudicated any further. The order dated 22.09.2023 is as under.
"1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Hardik Soni on behalf of the respondent- State and learned Advocate Mr. Manish Patel on behalf of respondent no.2.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following relief/s:
"10A. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in form of writ of mandamus quashing and setting aside the order dated 05.11.2020 passed by the respondent no. 3. B. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the petitioners are eligible for appointment as Aganwadi worker/tedeghars at Page 14 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined their respective places.
C. This Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the order passed by the respondent no. 3 pending hearing and final disposal of the petition. D. Pending hearing and final disposal of the petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents not to appoint any other candidate in the place of the petitioners."
3. The case of the petitioners in the present petition being that the petitioners had applied for the post of Aganwadi worker /Tedaghar in the Arvalli District more particularly pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondents on 11.08.2020. It would appear that originally the applications of the present petitioners had been rejected and whereas the petitioners had questioned the said rejection before the Appellate Committee and whereas the appeals preferred by the petitioners had been allowed and the Appellate Committee had directed the present petitioners to be considered for appointment and whereas subsequent thereto, the present petitioners were appointed.
4. It would appear that thereafter, the orders passed by the Appellate Committee, were questioned before the Commissioner and whereas the Commissioner vide order dated 26.10.2020 had come to a conclusion that the exercise done by the Appellate Committee was not in accordance with resolution dated Page 15 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined 25.11.2019 which governs the field and whereas considering the same the orders of Appellate Committee were directed to be set aside consequently resulting into appointment to the petitioners also being cancelled.
5. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Sudhanshu Jha on behalf of the petitioners who would submit that the application forms of the petitioners had not been considered by the respondents on technical grounds and whereas the Appellate Committee had been appraised of the same and whereas the Appellate Committee having regard to the fact that the petitioners were otherwise eligible, and that the mistake committed by the petitioners in uploading the required documents were directed not to come in the way of the petitioners in being considered for selection.
6. Learned Advocate would submit that once the petitioners were selected and appointed on the post in question, it was incumbent upon the respondents more particularly the Commissioner to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners before disturbing the orders of the Appellate Committee, which in turn had disturbed the appointments given to the present petitioners. Learned Advocate would submit that since the petitioners were removed from service without affording any opportunity, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner may be Page 16 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined set aside by this Court and this Court may direct the Commissioner to reconsider the entire issue.
7. As against the same, the present petition is vehemently objected to by learned AGP Mr. Hardik Soni, who would draw the attention of this Court to order dated 26.10.2020 passed by the Commissioner, Women and Child Welfare Department, Gandhinagar, State of Gujarat and would submit that the Commissioner had considered the aspect that there were errors committed by the petitioners at the time of filling up and uploading the application form and whereas such lacunas were permitted to be filled up at the time of appeal which would not be within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Committee. Learned AGP would in any case draw the attention of this Court to the orders passed by the Appellate Committee and would submit that the Appellate Committee, while considering the appeals of the present petitioners, had not given any reasons whatsoever for accepting the contentions of the appellants in the appeal i.e. petitioners before this Court before directing that the respondents should consider the case.
8. Learned AGP would submit that as far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned, even otherwise, the petitioner since she does not fulfill the requisite experience criteria was not entitled to apply for the post in question and whereas as far as petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned, since the petitioners did Page 17 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined not upload the mandatory documents which were required to be filed, the respondents had rightly rejected their applications and whereas the Appellate Committee had fell in error while directing to reconsider the applications. Thus submitting learned AGP would request this Court not to interfere with the order of the Commissioner.
9. Learned AGP Mr. Manish Patel for respondent no. 2 and 3 would support the submissions made by learned AGP. Learned Advocate Mr. Manish Patel would further submit that as such, subsequent to the appointments given to the petitioners being cancelled somewhere in the month of November 2020 post the order of the Commissioner dated 26.10.2020, the posts in question have been filled in and other candidates are now working on the said post. Learned Advocate would therefore, requests this Court not to disturb the appointments given to candidates who are otherwise not even joined in the present petition as party respondents. Thus submitting learned Advocate Mr. Patel would also request this Court not to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner.
10. In rejoinder, learned Advocate Mr. Jha would submit that as such, there is no dispute with regard to the petitioner no.1 fulfilling the experience criteria and in any case the non fulfillment of the experience criteria is not the reason for the respondents to have Page 18 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined rejected the candidature of the petitioner no.1. Insofar as petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned, learned Advocate Mr. Jha would reiterate that the petitioners had committed minor mistakes while uploading the application forms and the annexures which were required to be uploaded along with the same and whereas for such reason, the respondents ought not to have rejected the applications the applications preferred by the present petitioners.
11. Heard learned Advocates for the parties who have not submitted anything else.
12. Considering the submissions made by learned Advocates and having regard to the documents appended on record, it would appear that while the applications of the present petitioners for appointment to the post of Aganwadi Worker/Tedaghar had been rejected more particularly on the ground that either the appreciations were incomplete or the documents which were required to be appended along with the same, had improperly been appended or not appended at all.
13. As against the same, it would also appear that the petitioners had preferred appeal before the Appellate Committee as contemplated in Government Resolution dated 25.11.2019 and upon perusal of the proceedings in the appeal, it would appear that the Appellate Committee had not given any reason Page 19 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined whatsoever for accepting the contentions of the petitioners except for one single sentence in case of appeal of the petitioner no. 2 herein i.e. the Appellate Committee having stated in "the reply of the candidate as above is satisfactory". In the considered opinion of this Court, while the Appellate Committee would be empowered to hear and decide the grievances of the candidates, even insofar as non acceptance and non-consideration of the application or rejection of the applications of the candidates yet, it was incumbent upon the Appellate Committee to have given some reasons for accepting the appeal. While it is true that the Appellate Committee is only an administrative body for administrative convenience yet the fact remains that the Appellate Committee was empowered to take a decision as regards any grievance with regard to the selection process by the authorities concerned and whereas the Appellate Committee was also empowered to overturn the decision of the Selection Committee. Under such circumstances more particularly since setting aside of the decision of the Selection Committee would have its own implications, at least bare minimum reasons were required to be stated by the Appellate Committee for directing consideration of the applications of the present petitioners. To that extent, this Court tends to agree with the submission of learned AGP. Furthermore, this Court has also considered the order passed by learned Commissioner dated 26.10.2020 and whereas it would appear that Page 20 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined the Commissioner had inter alia opined that the Appellate Committee had directed acceptance of the application of the present petitioners inspite of the same being incomplete and the requirements mentioned in the advertisement itself not being fulfilled. In the considered opinion of this Court, while it had been attempted to be submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioners that documents could not be appended on account of connectivity issues more particularly since the District in question was not a developed district, yet, in this regard also, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of learned AGP that the candidates were given adequate time i.e. approximately 20 days between 11.08.2020 to 31.08.2020 for uploading their documents and whereas even if there were some problems in uploading at some particular time or at some particular place, it was always open for the candidates to have corrected the same at a later point of time albeit within the period specified hereinabove.
14. Furthermore, as it appears, the selection process was of the year 2020 and whereas upon the order passed by the Commissioner dated 26.10.2020, the appointment of the present petitioners were cancelled and whereas it would appear that as of now other candidates have been appointed and are working on the said posts in question. Under such circumstances more particularly for the reasons herein above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the present petition Page 21 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined is not required to be considered since any consideration or any orders passed in this petition, may tend to have any the effect of disturbing candidates who have been appointed and who are serving on the said post since almost last three years, more particularly such appointed candidates not being joined as party respondents in the present petition.
15. Furthermore while it would appear that the Commissioner was required to give an opportunity to the petitioners before disturbing the orders of the Appellate Committee since the petitioners had already been appointed by then yet considering the above observations, this Court deems it appropriate not to interfere leaving the issue of grant of opportunity by the Commissioner open. Having regard to the above discussion and observations in the considered opinion of this Court no reason for interference having been made out. The present petition is disposed of as rejected."
4. In view of above, these petitions need not be adjudicated any further. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed in view of the above order. Notice/Rule, if any, is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated."
9.3 In view of the above discussion, the present petition needs not to be adjudicated any further, as identical issue is decided by this Court in the aforesaid petition, which is Page 22 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15258/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/09/2025 undefined applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, in my opinion, the present petition is found meritless and accordingly, the present petition is required to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Rule stands discharged.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) DIWAKAR SHUKLA Page 23 of 23 Uploaded by MR. DIWAKAR SHUKLA(HC01778) on Mon Sep 29 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Sep 29 22:52:43 IST 2025