Gujarat High Court
Solanki Shilpaben Bharatkumar vs State Of Gujarat on 30 September, 2025
Author: A.S. Supehia
Bench: A.S. Supehia
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1053 of 2025
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/21618/2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1053 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
SOLANKI SHILPABEN BHARATKUMAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS. PRIYAL SHAH FOR MR MURALI N DEVNANI(1863) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
A B PATEL(7467) for the Respondent(s) No. 5
MS. VAISHNAVI VERMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA
Date : 30/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
(1) ADMIT. Learned AGP waives service of notice of
admission on behalf of Respondent - State.
(2) The matter was considerably heard by the Court on
25.09.2025 and was kept today in order to verify the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
judgment passed by this Court on an identical issue.
(3) The present appeal emanates from the order dated
06.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting
the writ petition filed by the present appellant in the
captioned writ petition, wherein the appellant - original
writ petitioner - had assailed the merit list as well as the
appointment of the private respondent No.5 to the post
of Aanganwadi Worker. The appellant participated in
the recruitment process undertaken by the respondent
authorities for appointment to the post of Aanganwadi
Worker pursuant to the advertisement issued on
28.04.2017. The advertisement was issued for filling up
the post of Aanganwadi Worker under the ICDS Unit,
Thasra, Dakore, consisting of the Dakore - II unit having
one post at Pandanvania-I village. After the recruitment
process was over, the respondent authorities appointed
respondent No.5 to the said post of Aanganwadi Worker
at Pandanvania-I.
(4) Learned advocate Ms.Priyal Shah, appearing for learned
advocate Mr. Murali N. Devnani for the appellant-
original writ petitioner, submitted that the action of the
respondent authorities in selecting the private
respondent is illegal and arbitrary on two counts. First,
that the present appellant is more meritorious than
respondent No.5, as she has secured 80.66% in SSC,
whereas respondent No.5 has secured 78.04%.
However, the latter was selected on the ground of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
having higher merit in Standard 12. In support of this
submission, reliance was placed on the judgment in
Parmar Bhavnaben Narvatbhai v. State of Gujarat,
Special Civil Application No.12432 of 2016. The second
ground urged was that respondent No.5 is not a
resident of Pandanvania-I village.
(5) It was further submitted by Ms. Shah that respondent
No.5 is not a resident of Pandanvania-I. She placed
reliance on the APL Card of the father-in-law of
respondent No.5, which shows the address as Navi
Nagari at Village: Pandanvania. However, Navi Nagari
does not fall within the precincts of Pandanvania-I. She
also referred to the application form filled by
respondent No.5, which mentions her correspondence
address as Tekri valu Faliyu at Pandanvania, not
Pandanvania-I. Ms. Shah further relied on the Dena
Bank passbook of respondent No.5, where the address
is mentioned as Navi Nagari, Village: Pandanvania-I.
She contended that none of the documents clearly prove
that respondent No.5 is a resident of Pandanvania-I, and
since these aspects were not considered by the learned
Single Judge, the order should be quashed and set
aside.
(6) Opposing the submission, learned advocate Mr.
Munshaw referred to the relevant documents
considered by the Committee. He highlighted the
recitals of the advertisement and the division of areas
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
under Pandanvania-I, II, and III. He submitted that Tekri
valu Faliyu, the area mentioned in respondent No.5's
application, is indeed part of Pandanvania-I. He referred
to documents such as the election card and Aadhaar
card of respondent No.5, both showing her address as
Tekri valu Faliyu, Pandanvania. Thus, no illegality was
committed in appointing her on the basis of area.
Regarding the objection to her educational
qualifications, Mr. Munshaw submitted that as per the
Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009 regulating
Aanganwadi appointments, the appointment of
respondent No.5 is proper.
(7) We have heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties at length. The facts established from the record
are that both the appellant and respondent No.5 applied
for the post of Aanganwadi Worker pursuant to the
advertisement dated 28.04.2017 for Dakore Unit-II,
specifically for Pandanvania-I. After completion of the
recruitment process, respondent No.5 was selected.
(8) The first contention raised by the appellant concerns the
issue of educational merit. The appellant secured
80.66% in SSC, while respondent No.5 secured 78.04%.
However, in HSC, respondent No.5 secured 65.57%,
while the appellant secured 62.00%. The appellant
relied on the Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009
prescribing the policy for Aanganwadi Worker
appointments. This Court, in Letters Patent Appeal No.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
268 of 2025, judgment dated 07.03.2025, held as
follows:
"15. We do not find that non-mentioning of
communication dated 13.12.2019 would be fatal
for the interest of the present appellant, since it
only mentions about the filing of her letters
through which she has raised objections to the
new merit list. We may, at this stage, refer to
the Government Resolution dated 13.11.2009,
which prescribes the procedure for appointment
to the post of Aganwadi Workers. The relevant
clause 1 of the Government Resolution reads
thus:
"1. Educational Qualification:-
(a) Anganwadi Worker - Minimum education
qualification - SSC Pass.
(b) Anganwadi Tedagar - Minimum education
qualification - 7th Standard Pass.
The District Development Officer of the
District concerned can give relaxation in
the minimum educational qualification of
Anganwadi Worker and Tedagar as per
requirement, using his discretion and
after making written note of the grounds,
in cases wherein candidates possessing
minimum educational qualification are not
available at the Anganwadi Centers even
after intensive drives. This power can be
utilized only in those cases wherein
candidates having minimum qualification
are not available even after conducting
intensive drives."
16. Thus, as per the clause 1, the minimum
educational qualification, which is required, is
SSC pass, however there is no cap on maximum
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
qualification. The relaxation is only provided,
when a candidate having minimum qualification
is not available. At this stage, we may refer to
the decision of the Division Bench dated
15.06.2021 in the case of Varnilaben Ketanbhai
Vasava (supra), whereby, the Division Bench,
on an analogous issue stemming out from the
clause 1 of Government Resolution dated
13.11.2009, has confirmed the decision of the
learned Single Judge. In the case before the
Division Bench, the respondent nos.4 and 5
therein, were holding the degree of Master of
Arts, whereas, the petitioner had cleared the
HSC examination. The Division Bench has thus,
after examining the provision of Resolution
dated 13.11.2009, has validated the
appointment of respondent nos. 4 and 5, who
are holding the degree of Master of Arts and
dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal against the
order passed by the learned Single Judge,
which has allowed the writ petition of the
candidates, who was possessing the degree of
Master of Arts.
17. We may, at this stage, refer to the order
dated 30.11.2016 passed by the learned Single
Judge, which was the subject matter of the
aforesaid order dated 15.06.2021 passed by the
Division Bench. The learned Single Judge in
paragraph no. 6 has held thus:
"6. As it is obvious, it is not in dispute that
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are more
meritorious and more qualified. In the
application given by the present petitioner
objecting to the appointment of
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, itself, is
indicative that Respondent Nos. 4 holds
degree of Master of Arts, whereas, the
petitioner has cleared HSC exam and is
having certificate of Montesary training,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
which is again not must for being
appointed on the said post. However, if, a
person has additional qualification they
are always placed higher than those, who
have less merit. The minimum
qualification or criteria enshrined in the
recruitment rules or the government
resolution are to eliminate those
candidates, who does not possess even
that minimum qualification. It goes
without saying that there cannot be any
ceiling to the higher and better
qualification."
18. Thus, after the decision rendered by the
Division Bench on the analogous issue and on
the intention of the Government Resolution
dated 13.11.2009, the communication dated
23.02.2017 issued by the Additional Director,
Women and Child Development, Gandhinagar
which is cited for rejecting the case of the
appellant pales into insignificance. We may
comment upon the communication dated
23.02.2017,which has been written by the
Additional Director, Women and Child
Development, Gandhinagar to Programme
Officer of District Panchayat, Sabarkantha,
wherein the Additional Director has clarified
that as per the provisions of Government
Resolution dated 13.11.2009, only the
minimum qualification of 10th Standard pass is
required to be considered and the percentage
obtained therein and in the recruitment, which
is to be held for Aganwadi Workers, no higher
education was required to be considered.
19. *** *** ***
20. The learned Single Judge though has
rendered the findings in favour of the present
appellant has ultimately directed the appellant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
to make the representation in view of the fact
that respondent no.3 is working since more
than 5 years. We do not subscribe to the view
expressed by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant cannot be relegated after so many
years to the same authority which has
committed illegality by directing them only to
consider the representation. This is in direct
conflict with the administration of justice. We
declare that the procedure adopted by the
Committee, of which the respondent no.2 is
also a Member and is a recruiting authority, is
illegal and against the judgment and order
passed by the Division Bench of this Court and
also against the letter and spirit of the
government policy dated 13.11.2009. As held
herein above, there is no restriction on the
maximum qualification and an Aganwadi
Worker cannot be held to be ineligible to the
post of Aganwadi Worker, merely because she
possesses higher qualification. It is surprising
to note that despite the formation of new merit
list, in which, the appellant figures at serial
no.1, the merit list is never operated and is
stalled on the basis of communication dated
23.02.2017, which was not supposed to be
considered at all, as it was not addressed to
the respondent no.2. Thus, the respondent
no.2, instead of pointing out to the Committee
about the aforesaid facts, has chosen to remain
silent, as a consequence thereof, the appellant
was not offered any appointment, though she
was placed at serial no.1. Hence, looking to the
approach of the respondent no.2, we think it fit
that appropriate costs shall be imposed upon
the respondent no.2 for creating mess of the
recruitment process."
(9) Thus, this Court has categorically held that a candidate
cannot be disqualified from appointment as an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
Aanganwadi Worker merely because she possesses
higher qualifications. On an analogous issue, the
Supreme Court in the case of Mohammad Riazul Usman
Gani and Ors. vs. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur,
2000 (2) S.C.C. 606, held:
"20. If an employee does not perform the duties
attached to the post disciplinary proceedings can
certainly be taken against him. An employer
cannot throw up his hands in despair and devise a
method denying appoint- ment to a person who
otherwise meets the requisite qualifications on the
ground that if appointed, he would not perform his
duties. Qualification prescribed is minimum.
Higher qualification cannot become a
disadvantage to the candidate.
21. A criterion which has the effect of denying a
candidate his right to be considered for the post
on the principle that he is having higher
qualification, than prescribed cannot be rational.
We have not been able to appreciate as to why
those candidates who possessed qualifications
equivalent to SSC examination could also not be
considered. We are saying this on the facts of the
case in hand and should not be understood as
laying down a rule of universal application."
(10) Thus, the Supreme Court, in the case of a similar issue,
examining the criteria of minimum qualification
prescribed for an appointment, has held that if the
qualification prescribed is minimum, the higher
qualification cannot become a disadvantage to the
candidate. Thus, in the present case, the higher
qualification of respondent No.5 in 12th Standard, i.e.,
securing 65.57% against the 62.00% of the applicant in
12th Standard, cannot be considered as a factor for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/LPA/1053/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/09/2025
undefined
disqualifying respondent No.5 from the post of
Aanganwadi Worker.
(11) The next objection is with regard to the residential
address of respondent No.5. The appellant is contending
that respondent No.5 is not a resident of Pandanvadia-1
and could not have been selected in view of the policy of
the State Government. It is noticed by us that the
Committee constituted under the G.R. dated 13.11.2009
examined the documentary evidence such as the
election card, the application filled by her, and the
Aadhar Card. We have also examined the same. It is
noticed by us that respondent No.5 qualifies for the
criteria of the area/territory as prescribed in the
advertisement and the policy. The documentary
evidence shows that she is a resident of Tekri valu
Faliyu, which is included in the Pandanvania-I area as
per the ICDS Division, Thasra. Hence, on this count
also, the case of the appellant fails.
(12) On an overall appreciation of the facts, we find that no
error is committed by the learned Single Judge. Hence,
the present Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. As a
sequel, the Civil Application is disposed of accordingly.
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
(L. S. PIRZADA, J)
Jaimin Prajapati/17
