Gujarat High Court
Nitaben Ghanshyambhai Parmar vs State Of Gujarat on 26 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15085 of 2020
==========================================================
NITABEN GHANSHYAMBHAI PARMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. ALKESH N SHAH(3749) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 26/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. This petition is filed for the following prayers:
"10(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow and admit
this petition.
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting
aside the order dated 9-9-2020 passed by Respondent no.2
and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities
to declare that petitioner is holding requisite criteria as per
advertisement and take her a worker in Aanganwadi Centre
Code No.18, Velavadar 3, ward no.10 Velavadar with all
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
benefits from the date of application dtd.23-8-2019.
(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct to the Res.No.3
i.e. District Development Officer to decide application dtd.2-9-
2020 with in a stipulated time;
(D) xxxxx"
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are
such that an advertisement dated 9.8.2019 for recruitment of
worker/helper for aaganwadi Velavadar-3 came to be
published by respondent no.4 and the petitioner applied for
the same as she was possessing all essential qualification; on
the list being published by the respondent-authority, the
name of the petitioner was shown as 2
nd
though she is local
married resident of the ward no.10 as per the requirement
and the respondent no.6-Manisha Devrajbhai Hadiyal came
first rank in the merit where she is resident of ward no.9.
Therefore, this petition is filed with the prayers as mentioned
hereinabove.
3. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that the petitioner applied for the advertisement which was
issued for ward no.10 only and though the petitioner
possessed the requisite eligibility as per the advertisement,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
surprisingly, the authority had considered her ineligible and
selected the respondent no.6 for the said post though she
resided in ward no.9, for which no advertisement is published
at all. He submitted that one of the conditions in the
advertisement for eligibility was that "first choice only to
eligible local married candidates residing within the limits of
the village or phalia, para and ward in which the Anganwadi
Centre is located. In case the qualified candidates are not
available at the local level, the candidate from the nearest
place will be selected instead of the local one."
3.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner has further
submitted that on the result being published, she filed a
complaint dated 4.12.2019 before the Mamlatdar, Wadhwan,
Dist.Surendranagar regarding the illegality in the recruitment
process; the Mamlatdar wrote a letter dated 24.12.2019 and
30.1.2020 to the Revenue Talati, Velavadar and ascertained
whether there is any illegality or not, to which the Talati-
respondent no.5 herein reverted back vide letter dated
7.2.2020 along with the statements of persons from which it
is stated that the respondent no.2 is residing in ward no.9
and therefore the Mamlatdar, Wadhwan sent a letter dated
12.2.2020 to the Deputy Collector, Wadhwan stating the
respondent no.6-Manishaben is residing with her father-in-law
in ward no.9; further he submitted that even the Child
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
Development Office-respondent no.4 has also submitted the
report dated 17.3.2020 to the learned Deputy Collector that
Manishaben is residing at ward no.9. He submitted as the
authority had not given proper answer to the petitioner even
after the report of the Talati and letter of Mamlatdar, the
petitioner approached respondent no.2-Collector, Surendranagar
and filed representation dated 18.8.2020, however, the said
file was sent to Deputy Collector without giving any answer
to the petitioner. The Deputy Collector sent a letter dated
9.9.2020 to the petitioner and stated that as per the report
of the Mamlatdar, there was no primary illegality accrued in
the recruitment process of taking worker and helper for
aanganwadi and the petitioner's application was forwarded to
the District Development Officer-respondent no.3. Thereafter,
vide letter dated 9.9.2020, the Deputy Collector directed the
present petitioner to file appeal before the respondent no.3-
District Development Officer for the same issue and the
petitioner filed the application dated 2.9.2020 before the
respondent no.3-District Development Officer, however, no
reply is received by the petitioner till date.
3.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted
that the advertisement was issued for ward no.10. The
petitioner fulfilled all the criteria for the said advertisement
including that she was staying in ward no.10. The respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
no.6-Manishaben was staying in ward no.9, for which there
was no advertisement. Even then, said Manishaben applied
for the said post in the said advertisement. The respondents-
authorities should have held her ineligible for the said post
as she was not residing in ward no.10 for which the
advertisement was given and the petitioner ought to have
been selected as she possessed all qualifications. He
submitted that inspite of number of communications to the
respondents authorities as stated hereinabove, the respondents
authorities did not pay any heed to her complaint. He,
therefore, submitted that this petition is required to be
allowed as the selection was in violation of the terms and
conditions of the advertisement issued by the respondents
authorities.
3.4 In support of his submissions, learned advocate for
the petitioner has relied on the judgment in the case of
Manjulaben Khumansing Bariya V/s State of Gujarat and 3
Ors. reported in 2011(2) GLR 1822.
4. Learned advocate Ms.Pandya for the respondent
nos.3 and 4, by referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
said respondents, has submitted that pursuant to the
advertisement issued by the authority inviting applications for
the post of aaganwadi centre at Velavdar-3 ward no.10 at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
Vadhwan, two applications were received; in the selection
process, respondent no.6 as well as petitioner have
participated by providing their certificates and relevant
documents, the respondent no.6 was found more meritorious
with 64.64% whereas the petitioner secured 60.85%. She
submitted that the objection of the petitioner that the
selection of respondent no.6 is not proper, by saying that she
was not resident of particular ward and it is de-hors the
policy of the state government, cannot be entertained in view
of the fact that the state government has published
resolution dated 13.11.2009 in supersession of all earlier
resolutions and by this resolution, the state government has
defined the word Local Candidate. As per this provision, a
candidate can be said to be a local candidate who is residing
in a village or a faliya, para, ward where the particular
aaganwadi center is situated and a liberty has also been
reserved for selection of candidate residing in nearby areas if
a local candidate so defined above is not available. She
submitted that except the part of being local resident, no
other criteria such as the petitioner being more meritorious
than the respondent no.6 is raised. The advertisement as well
as policy clearly reveals that a married candidate resident of
an area within the limit of village or falia or para or ward
where the aanganwadi centre is situated and therefore
respondent no.6 being local resident and being more
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
meritorious came to be appointed, which cannot be
questioned, more particularly, in absence of any other
submission disputing other eligibility conditions. She,
therefore, submitted that this petition is required to be
dismissed.
4.1 In support of her submissions, she has relied on
the decision of coordinate Bench of this Court dated
10.2.2009 passed in Special Civil Application No.600 of 2009
and allied matters, which has been confirmed by the Division
Bench vide order dated 9.4.2009 passed in Letters Patent
Appeal Nos.318 of 2009 and allied matters.
5. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and
perused the papers.
5.1 The only point which is harped upon by the
learned advocate for the petitioner is that the petitioner
belongs to ward no.10, the respondent no.6-Manishaben
belongs to ward no.9, the advertisement was published for
ward no.10 and no advertisement was published for ward
no.9 and therefore the petitioner should have been placed at
serial no.1 in the merit list as she possesses all the requisite
qualification. It is undisputed that the respondent no.6
attained 64.64% whereas the petitioner secured 60.85%.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
5.2 The advertisement mentions that "first choice only
to eligible local married candidates residing within the limits
of the village or phalia, para and ward in which the
Anganwadi Centre is located. In case the qualified candidates
are not available at the local level, the candidate from the
nearest place will be selected instead of the local one." The
Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009 defines a candidate
can be said to be a local candidate who is residing in a
village or a faliya, para, ward where the particular
aaganwadi center is situated and a liberty has also been
reserved for selection of candidate residing in nearby areas if
a local candidate so defined above is not available. As per
this definition, a local candidate can be of a particular
village, street, para or ward where center is situated and the
ward of respondent no.6 falls under village Velavadar, Taluka
Vadhvan where the aanganwadi is located.
5.3 The said issue has been elaborately discussed in
the judgment relied on by learned advocate for the
respondent nos.3 and 4, wherein in the order dated 10.2.2009
passed in Special Civil Application No.600 of 2009 and allied
matters, it is observed in paragraphs 7,8 and 11 as under:
"7. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
respective parties.
8. As per the advertisement dated 12.5.2008, a candidate
who is a "local candidate" of the concerned Anganwadi
Centre of the concerned village is eligible to appointed as
Anganwadi Worker and that is the scheme of the
Anganwadi Centre under ICDS Programme. The applications
12.5.2008 for appointment as Anganwadi Workers of
respective Anganwadi Centre of respective villages as
mentioned in the said advertisement. All the petitioners as
well as respective respondent No.4 applied for the said post.
It is to be noted that all the respective respondent No.4 are
residing either in "para" or "falia" of a particular respective
villages. All the respective respondent No.4 are paying the
taxes/revenue to the concerned villages. Therefore merely
because they are residing in falia/para of the concerned
villages, it cannot be said that
they are not the "local candidates" of the concerned villages.
It is to be noted that it is not in dispute and even disputed
by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the
respective petitioners that if the concerned respective
respondent No.4 apply for Anganwadi Centres at another
village/other villages, they will not be eligible as they cannot
be said to be "local candidates" so far as those Anganwadi
Centres are concerned. If that is so, then in that case, if
the contention and the submission of the respective
petitioners is accepted that the respective respondent No.4
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
cannot be said to be local candidates and they are not
eligible for appointment as Anganwadi Workers at
Anganwadi Centres of the concerned villages, in that case
the respective respondent No.4 will never get any
opportunity to be considered as eligible for Anganwadi
Workers at any Centre. Such interpretation and submission
cannot be accepted. There must be one centre for which the
respective respondent No.4 can be considered as eligible for
appointment as Anganwadi Workers. Otherwise it will be
taking away the rights of those who are residing in
para/falias of a particular village. Therefore as such the
respective respondent No.4 were the local candidates for the
respective Anganwadi Centres of concerned villages. Still
with a view to clear any doubt the resolution dated
10.9.2008 came to be issued/published and it is
clarified/explained that "local candidate" means the candidate
who is residing in a para/falia of particular concerned village
and who is paying the revenue/taxes to the particular
village". In the said resolution dated 10.9.2008, it is
specifically mentioned that "local" should be understood as
mentioned in the said resolution. It is the contention on
behalf of the petitioners that by the said resolution dated
10.9.2008 a new resolution is passed and the norms have
been changed and the policy for appointment as Anganwadi
Workers has been changed as it is mentioned in the said
resolution that "it is resolved". Such a contention cannot be
accepted. On fair reading of the resolution dated 10.9.2008 it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
is a clarificatory/explanatory in nature. By the aforesaid
resolution it cannot be said that the norms of selection for
appointment as Anganwadi Workers are changed and/or
policy of making the appointment of local candidate is
changed. As stated above, even those candidates who were
residing in the village falia/para of a particular village could
have been considered to be a "local candidates" and they
could not have been denied the appointment as Anganwadi
Workers at the Anganwadi Centre of a village of which in
falia/para they are residing. It appears that only with a
view to remove the doubt such a resolution dated 10.9.2008
has been issued, which, as stated above, is clarificatory and/
or explanatory in nature. Therefore the contention on behalf
of the petitioners that the same cannot be made applicable
to the recruitment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers initiated
by the advertisement dated 12.5.2008 cannot be accepted.
Therefore the prayer of the petitioners even to quash and
set aside the G.R. dated 10.9.2008 also cannot be
accepted as it cannot be said that by the said resolution the
norms of selection of Anganwadi Workers are changed and/or
there is any amendment in the policy of appointment of
Anganwadi Workers as sought to be canvassed on behalf of
the petitioners.
11. It is to be noted that all the respective respondent No.4
belong to the respective villages of the respective Anganwadi
Centres where they are appointed. They are residing in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15085/2020 ORDER DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
para/falias of particular villages as such they are not eligible
for appointment as Anganwadi Workers at the Anganwadi
Centres in other villages. Under the circumstances, it cannot
be said that the appointment of the respective respondent
No.4 as Anganwadi Workers at the respective Anganwadi
Centres of the villages of which they are residing in
para/falias are in any way illegal and/or arbitrary and/or de
hors the policy of the State Government. They are local
candidates of the particular Anganwadi Centres of concerned
villages where they are appointed."
It is required to be noted that Letters Patent
Appeals filed against this order are dismissed.
6. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the opinion that the respondents have not committed any
irregularity in appointing respondent no.6 as she was found
more meritorious than the present petitioner and therefore,
this petition is not required to be entertained and is required
to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. Notice/Rule stands
discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
