[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Shitalben Vikubhai Malakiya vs State Of Gujarat on 23 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17846/2014 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17846 of 2014
==========================================================
SHITALBEN VIKUBHAI MALAKIYA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NILESH M SHAH(780) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS FORUM BIMAL SUKHADWALA, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR DJ CHAUHAN(219) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR KIRIT PATEL for MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 23/02/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Forum Bimal Sukhadwala,
learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice
of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 1-State. Mr. H. S.
Munshaw, learned Advocate, waives service of notice of Rule
on behalf of respondent No. 3.
2. Heard Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, learned Advocate for the
petitioner, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17846/2014 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
respondent No. 1-State, and Mr. Kirit Patel, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of Mr. Munshaw, learned Advocate for
respondent No. 3.
3. The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this
petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring that the petitioner is
eligible and entitled to get appointment on the post of
Aanganwadi Worker in view of an advertisement, Ann-B and be
pleased to direct the respondents to consider the above
facts/merits and give appointment to the petitioner as
Aanganwadi Worker in the interest of justice from 15-09-14 with
all monetary and non monetary benefits.
(C) Pending admission till final disposal of this petition this
Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to direct respondent to keep
one post vacant in the area village Popatpara from where the
petitioner has applied, till final disposal of this petition in the
interest of justice.
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to declare that the
appointment of the respondent No. 4 was made in the violation of
the rules and the same is bed in law in the interest of justice and
set aside appointment order dt. 15-09-14, Ann-H.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17846/2014 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
(E) Be pleased to pass such other and further orders as may be
deemed fit and proper."
4. At the outset, Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner,
would point out to this Court that while preparing the merit list
of Anganwadi Worker in question, the respondent authority
has erroneously considered total of 1400 marks for B.Ed.
instead of 1000 marks, thereby, committed serious error in
preparing the merit list and accordingly, excluded the
candidature of the petitioner to be appointed to the post of
Anganwadi Worker. It is submitted that as per B.Ed.
marksheet produced on record would clearly indicate that total
marks are 1000 and not 1400. It is further submitted that the
petitioner is also possessing a master's degree in the Hindi
subject and such certificate was also submitted along with her
application, but the same was not considered by the respondent
authority.
5. Per contra, Mr. Patel, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3,
is unable to controvert the aforesaid fact. Nonetheless, Mr.
Patel, learned Advocate for respondent No. 3, would submit
that there is nothing on record to show that while submitting
the application, the petitioner had submitted her master's
degree certificate.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17846/2014 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and upon appreciation of the aforesaid
solitary contention raised by Mr. Shah, learned Advocate for
the petitioner, it is apparent from the record that the marksheet
of B.Ed. issued by Shreemati Nathibai Damodar Thackersey
Women's University, Mumbai, in favour of the petitioner
showing total of 1000 marks and not 1400, as considered by
respondent No. 3, while preparing the merit list.
7. So far as the other contention of Mr. Shah, learned Advocate
for the petitioner, that despite the fact that the petitioner is
possessing a master's degree in the Hindi subject, such marks
obtained by her are not considered by the respondent authority
while preparing the merit list is concerned, it is true that the
petitioner appears to have been possessed of a master's degree
for the Hindi subject, but at the same time, in her application
form, the petitioner has not mentioned any marks obtained by
her in the master's degree. At the same time, it is for the
authority to recheck the said aspect and if from the record it
finds that while submitting the application, the petitioner has
annexed a copy of her master's degree certificate, while re-
examining the merits of the petitioner, such marks obtained by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17846/2014 ORDER DATED: 23/02/2026
undefined
her in the master's degree may also be taken into account.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and for the foregoing reasons, the
matter requires to be remanded back to respondent No. 3 to
reconsider the merit of the petitioner by re-evaluating her
marks obtained by her during her educational qualification in
the degree/master's degree, as the case may be.
9. Such exercise shall be completed by respondent No. 3 within
one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Upon re-evaluating the merit of the petitioner, if her total
marks are found to be more than the marks of respondent No.
4 herein, an appropriate order may be passed in regard to her
appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker in question.
10. In view of the foregoing conclusion, the present petition is
partly allowed. Rule is made absolute, to the aforesaid extent.
No order as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
NILESH
