Allahabad High Court
Madhubala Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas ... on 14 May, 2025
Author: Karunesh Singh Pawar
Bench: Karunesh Singh Pawar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:28217
Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 936 of 2025
Petitioner :- Madhubala Tiwari
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Lko And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sandeep Singh, learned Standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order dated 03/01/2025 passed by Opposite Party No.6/ Jila Karyakram Adhikari/ Prabhari Adhikari, Jila Bal Vikas Pariyojna, District Gonda contained as Annexure No.1, by which, petitioner has been denied departmental promotion on the post of Aganwadi Worker (Karyakatri).
(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties to promote the petitioner on the post of Aganwari Worker as the petitioner is working on the post of Aganwari Worker since the year 2018 and to pay her the emoluments admissible to Aganwari Worker.
(iii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No. 4 to 6 that one post of Aganwari Worker be kept in abeyance at Aganwadi Centre Mahadeva-Ist, Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Block Pandri Kripal
District Gonda, where the petitioner is working and holding the additional charge of the Post of Aganwari Worker and the same should not be filled up with direct recruitment in the pursuance of Advertisement dated 14/10/24 contained as Annexure No.4 to this Writ Petition.
(iv) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Parties not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as Aganwari Worker at Aganwadi Centre Mahadeva-Ist, Bal Vikas Pariyojna, Block Pandri Kripal, District Gonda and to promote the petitioner on the post of Aganwari Worker at the same Centre.
3. Undisputed facts in this case are that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Anganwari Sevika on 26.12.2000 at Centre 1st Mahadeva, Vikas Khand Pandri Kripal, District Gonda. She has been continuously working at the said centre since her appointment. At the time, the minimum educational qualification required for the post of Anganwari Sevika was Class V, whereas for the post of Anganwari Karyakatri, it was High School (Class X). It is not in dispute that the petitioner possessed the High School qualification at the time of her initial appointment. A copy of her High School mark-sheet is available on record.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner was given additional charge of Anganwari Karyakatri on 11.07.2018 at the above mentioned Centre. Since then, she has been discharging the responsibilities of the said post with due diligence. Her performance report, details of her work, and experience certificate have been annexed as Annexures 11A, 11B, and 12 to the writ petition. These documents have not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel.
5. On 14.10.2024, an advertisement was issued for the recruitment of Anganwari Karyakatri for 243 vacant posts in District Gonda. As per the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, 50% of these posts are to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% through direct recruitment. If the posts reserved for promotion remain vacant, they shall be filled by direct recruitment. Clause 3(Ka)(III) of the said Government Order is quoted below:
"(III) ???????? ???? ?? 50 ??????? ???? ????? ? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????????? ?? ??????? 50 ??????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ????????? ?????????? ?? ????????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ????? ????????? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ???-?????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???????? ????? ???? ???? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?????????"
6. The petitioner passed her Intermediate examination while in service, on 15.06.2003. The Government Order dated 21.03.2023 stipulates Intermediate as the minimum qualification for appointment to the post of Anganwari Karyakatri. Earlier, the petitioner had filed Writ A No. 10339/2024, titled Madhubala Tiwari vs. State of U.P. and Others, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.11.2024, directing the District Program Officer to decide her application for promotion.
7. In purported compliance of that judgment, the petitioner submitted an application to the District Program Officer, Gonda. However, her request was rejected on the ground that she had obtained her Intermediate qualification without obtaining prior permission from the department. The relevant portion of the rejection order reads as under:-
"??????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??????? ???????-????? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ?????? 23 ??????? 2000 ?? ??????? ??? ??, ????? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ??? 1997 ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? (??????) ?????? ????? ?? ???? 2003 ??? ??????????? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ??????????? ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ?? ??????????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????, ????????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ??????????? ??????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ??, ??????? ?????????? ?????? ?? ???????? ??? ?? ?? ?????
??? ????????????? ??????? ??????? ??????, ???????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ??????, ??? ????? ????????, ??????????? ?????? ?? ??????????? ?????? 19.11. 2024 ???????? ????????? ???? ???? ???"
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is arbitrary. As per the earlier Government Order dated 29.01.2021, the minimum qualification for the post of Anganwari Karyakatri was High School, a qualification the petitioner already possessed at the time of her appointment in 2000. The petitioner has been holding the additional charge of Anganwari Karyakatri since 2018 and, therefore, her case ought to have been considered based on the prevailing qualification requirement of High School.
9. It is further argued that as per the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, the petitioner is eligible for promotion since she passed Intermediate while in service. Her representation was rejected solely on the ground that she had not taken departmental permission to appear in the examination.
10. Learned Standing Counsel opposed the petition, stating that the petitioner passed her Intermediate examination in 2003 as a regular candidate without prior approval of the departmental. A report from the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Gonda, dated 17.02.2025, was obtained which mentions that the Principal of the institution concerned did not seek any permission from the DIOS and concealed the fact that the petitioner was in service while pursuing her education. Hence, her case was rejected.
11. In rebuttal, the petitioner?s counsel refers to page 67 of the writ petition, which is a certificate issued by the Principal of Shri Lal Bahadur Inter College, Badalpur Belsar, Gonda. The certificate issued by the Principal certifies that the petitioner appeared in and passed the Intermediate examination in the evening shift under a special arrangement in 2003.
12. The question which is to be adjudicated by this Court is that whether the petitioner can be denied promotion to the post of Anganwari Karyakatri solely on the ground that she passed Intermediate while in service without obtaining prior permission from the department.
13. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner is not a government servant, and hence the U.P Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 applicable to government servants do not apply to her. Neither the counter affidavit nor the submissions of the Standing Counsel cite any rule, regulation, or government order requiring an Anganwari Sevika to obtain prior permission for pursuing further education.
14. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner completed her Intermediate in the evening shift, which did not interfere with her official duties. It is also not the respondents' case that her work was affected. Therefore, the only reason for rejection that she passed Intermediate without departmental leave cannot be sustained in the absence of a rule mandating such permission. The case of the petitioner is that she applied for the post of Anganwari Karyakatri which is to be filled up by promotion.
15. A perusal of the government order dated 21.03.2023 shows that Clause 3(Ka)(III) of the said government order provides that if the 50% posts of Anganwari Karyakatri which are to be filled through promotion are not filled by promotion, no post shall be left vacant for the next selection; instead, they shall be filled through direct recruitment. Therefore, the petitioner?s candidature for promotion to the higher post of Anganwari Karyakatri cannot be rejected solely on the ground that she appeared for the intermediate examination without obtaining leave from the department, particularly when there is no provision requiring leave for the purpose of pursuing higher educational qualifications.
16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure No. 1) being unsustainable is hereby quashed.
17. A writ of mandamus is issued, directing respondent no. 6 to reconsider the petitioner?s case for promotion to the post of Anganwari Karyakatri afresh, in view of the above observations, and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
18. Until such decision is made, one post at the concerned centre shall remain reserved for the petitioner.
Order Date :- 14.5.2025/R.C.
