[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Akanksha Kumari vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 19 December, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 4597 of 2025
----
1. Akanksha Kumari, aged about 27 years, D/O Anand Raj, Resident of
Village: Nawadih, P.O. Behradih, PS. Domchanch and District
Koderma.
2. Arti Verma, aged about 37 years, W/O Sudhir Kumar Swarnkar,
Resident of Village: Bastacolla (Sonar Basti), P.O: Dhansar, P.S:
Jhariya and District: Dhanbad.
3. Khushbu Kumari, aged about 37 years, W/O Jai Prakash Nirala,
Resident of Village: 44, Degwa Tola, Lari, Near Panchayat Bhawan,
P.O: Lari Kalan, P.S: Rajrappa and District: Ramgarh.
4. Deepika Deep, aged about 32 years D/O Deonarayan Ram, Resident
of Village: Dari, P.O: Dari, P.S: Giddi(A) and District: Hazaribagh.
5. Kanchan Kumari, aged about 37 years, W/O Krishna Murari Turi,
Resident of Village: Mendhochaprkho, P.O: Lataki, P.S: Jamua and
District: Giridih.
6. Tanu Priya, aged about 27 years, D/O Shankar Mahto, Resident of
Village: Datma More Kuju, P.O: Kuju, P.S: Mandu and District:
Ramgarh.
7. Laxmi Kumari, aged about 26 years, D/O Arun Kumar Mehta,
Resident of Village: Kadwa, P.O: Kewal, P.S: Barhi and District:
Hazaribagh.
8. Pallawi Kumari, aged about 27 years, D/O Ranvijay Prasad Mehta,
Resident of Village: Gunja, P.O: Ichak, P.S: Ichak and District:
Hazaribagh.
9. Sitara Kumari, aged about 26 years, D/O Koushal Kumar Mehta,
Resident of Village: Gunja, P.O: Ichak, P.S: Ichak and District:
Hazaribagh.
10. Sangita Kumari, aged about 33 years, D/O Sudarshan Ram,
Resident of Village: Satahe, P.O: Patan, P.S: Patan and District:
Palamu.
11. Anamika Kumari, aged about 29 years, D/O Rajendra Nayak,
Resident of Village: Tandwa, P.O: Tandwa, P.S: Tandwa and District:
Chatra.
12. Pushpa Kumari, aged about 43 years, W/O Ajit Kumar Choudhary,
Resident of Village: Kadma Market Farm Area, P.O: Jamshedpur,
P.S: Kadma and District: East Singhbhum.
13. Bhawna Supriya, aged about 27 years, D/O Yadu Nath Mahto,
Resident of Village: Khalari, P.O: Ajaigarh, P.S: Silli and District:
Ranchi.
14. Anuja Lakra, aged about 29 years, D/O Parmeshwar Bhagat,
Resident of Village: Dunduria Lohardaga Road, P.O: Gumla, P.S:
Gumla and District: Gumla.
15. Sunita Kumari, aged about 36 years, D/O Maneshwar Baraik,
Resident of Village: Ghaghra, P.O: Ghaghra, P.S: Ghaghra and
District: Gumla.
16. Manisha Kumari, aged about 28 years, W/O Rajkiran Jaiswal,
Resident of Village: Mahagama, P.O: Mahagama, P.S: Mahagama
and District: Godda
17. Krity Agrawal, aged about 29 years, D/O Sheo Prasad Agrawal,
Resident of Village: Dibha Mohalla, P.O: Chatra, P.S: Chatra and
District: Chatra.
18. Bindu Kumari Ray, aged about 30 years, W/O Bhagirath Kumar Ray,
Resident of Village: Dakai, P.O: Manigarhi, P.S: Sarwan Dakai and
-: 1 :-
District: Deoghar.
19. Rekha Devi, aged about 36 years, W/O Sukhdev Prasad, Resident of
Village: Chedra, P.O: Bishnugarh, PS Bishnugarh and District:
Hazaribagh.
20. Sadhna Kumari, aged about 28 years, W/O Rajiv Ranjan, Resident of
Village: Kumhari, P.O: Narchahi, P.S: Mayurhand, and District:
Chatra.
21. Menka Kumari, aged about 31 years, C/O Chandan Choudhari,
Resident of Village: Jabra, P.O: Jabra, P.S: Simariya and District:
Chatra.
22. Anima Ebha Minj, aged about 35 years, D/O Joachim Minj, Resident
of Village: Q.No. DS-1-146-A Railway Colony, P.O:B.S.City-10
Radhanagar, P.S: Balidih and District: Bokaro.
23. Bulli Rani Marandi, aged about 33 years, W/O Sandeep Hembrom,
Resident of Village: Panibaswa, P.O: Machhali, P.S: Bhelwaghati
Deori and District: Giridih.
24. Sudha Kumari, aged about 28 years, D/O Wakil Prasad Mehta,
Resident of Village: Churchu, P.O: Sindur, P.S: Korra and District:
Hazaribagh.
25. Anita Kumari, aged about 30 years, D/O Dhananjay Pramanik,
Resident of Village: Tata Sijua 12 No Basti Kapuria, P.O: Bhelatand,
P.S: Jogta and District: Dhanbad.
26. Neha Kumari, aged about 27 years, D/O Suphal Ram Rajwar,
Resident of Village: Tand Balidih, P.O: Jainamore, P.S: Jaridih and
District: Bokaro.
27. Anuja Kumari, aged about 25 years, D/O Sunil Kumar Dubey,
Resident of Village: Salhana, P.O: Kutmu, P.S: Pandu and District:
Palamu.
28. Puja Kumari, aged about 27 years D/O Sunil Kumar Dubey, Resident
of Village: Salhana, P.O: Kutmu, P.S: Pandu and District: Palamu.
29. Bandana Kumari, aged about 44 years, W/O Vijay Kumar, Resident
of Village: Ward 1 Rakhwan, P.O: Jamtara, P.S: Jamtara, and District:
Jamtara.
30. Ranjeeta Kumari, aged about 40 years, W/O Ranjeet Kumar Vimal,
Resident of Village: Jogidih, P.O: Nandudih, P.S: Satgawan and
District: Koderma.
31. Nushrat Bano, aged about 41 years, Wife of Md. Rahbar Alam,
Resident of Kurmitand, Brahmandiha, P.O., P.S. Dhanbad & District
Dhanbad.
32. Shazada Parween, aged about 34 years, Daughter of Shamsuddin
Ansari, Resident of Singhdih, P.O. Gomo, P.S. Gomo & District
Dhanbad.
33. Raginee Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of Kunj Bihari
Mishra, Resident of Village Majhigawan, P.O., P.S. Manjhigawan &
District Jamshedpur.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having it office at
Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S. Morabadi & District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development
and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman,
having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum &
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
-: 2 :-
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its
office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., PS. Namkum & District -
Ranchi, Jharkhand
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum &
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 4667 of 2025
----
1. Rupa Kumari, aged about 35 years, Wife of Rahul Kumar, Resident
of at 710, Bhuchungdih Road, Jainamore Bandhdih, P.O.-Bandhdih,
P.S. - Jaridih, District Bokaro Jharkhand - 829301.
2. Monika Kumari, aged about 33 years, Daughter of Rajendra Singh,
Resident of Tara Nagar, P.O. & P.S. - Chas, District Bokaro,
Jharkhand - 827013.
3. Gitanjali Verma, aged about 32 years, Daughter of Dilip Verma,
Resident of Opposite Galaxia Mall, Kali Mandir Gali, Sukhdeo Nagar,
Ratu Road, P.O. & P.S.-Sukhdeonagar, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand -
834005.
4. Sangita Rani Gupta, aged about 41 years, Wife of Manoj Kumar
Gupta, Daughter of Ashok Kumar Sahu, Resident of Makatpur P.O.-
Makatpur, P.S.--Giridih, Jharkhand- 815301
5. Deepa Kumari, aged about 31 years, Daughter of Bhola Mahato,
Resident of Village - Parasia, P.O. - Kusunda, P.S. Putki, District
Dhanbad, Jharkhand- 828116.
6. Pinky Kumari, aged about 28 years, Daughter of Dinesh Mahto,
Resident of Village - Nutandih, P.O. - TupKadih P.S.- Jaridih, District
- Bokaro, Jharkhand - 827010.
7. Swati Kumari, aged about 24 years, Daughter of Kuleshwar Saw,
Resident of Village - Banji, Barughutu, Uttari, Banji, P.O.- Banji, P.S. -
Mandu, District -Ramgarh, Jharkhand 825314.
8. Aparna Singh, aged about 45 years, Wife of Siteshwar Singh,
Resident of Village - Surju Gadi, P.O. - Gadi Nawdiha, P.S. - Jamua,
District - Giridih, Jharkhand - 815312.
9. Amirun Nisha, aged about 33 years, Wife of Md. Anwarul Ansari,
Resident of Village - Jamni Paharpur, P.O.- Jamni Paharpur, P.S.-
Godda, District-Godda, Jharkhand- 814133.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. - Dhurwa,
P.S. - Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. --- Dhurwa, P.S. --Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
3. Secretary, Department of Women Child Development & Social
Security, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, having
its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum,
Ranchi.
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. -
-: 3 :-
Namkum, Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 4703 of 2025
----
1. Anju Kumari, aged about 39 years, W/o Hari Shankar Kumar, R/o
377 Vidyapuri, P.O. Jhumri Telaiya, P.S. Telaiya and District -
Koderma.
2. Sushila Kumari, aged about 41 years, D/o Suresh Lal Barnwal, R/o
Adarsh Nagar, Near Cooperative Colony, NH- 33, P.O. Hazaribagh,
P.S. Bishnugarh and District - Hazaribagh.
3. Madhuri Kumari, aged about 34 years, W/o Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, R/o
Village Rajogari, P.O. Lesligang, P.S. Lesligang and District -
Palamau.
4. Shobha Kumari, aged about 35 years, D/o Radha Kant Mehra, R/o
Village Lougain, P.O. Lougain, P.S. Pathargama and District- Godda.
5. Shweta Soren, aged about 31 years, D/o Mehilal Manjhi, R/o Village
Chainpur, P.O. Chainpur, P.S. Charhi and District Hazaribagh.
6. Suchita Kumari, aged about 38 years, W/o Arvind Ram, R/o Village
Resuaa, P.O., P.S. Manjhiaon and District - Garhwa.
7. Sarita Murmu, aged about 33 years, W/o Binod Hembrom, R/o
Village Gangta Govindpur, P.O. Motia, P.S. Godda & District Godda.
8. Biva Kumari, aged about 42 years, D/o Devendra Nath Jha, R/o Dev
kunj, Mohalla Saket Puri, P.O., P.S. & District - Godda.
9. Ravina Rani, aged about 40 years, D/o Jay Narayan Sah, R/o
Namaste Road, Borio Bazar, P.O., P.S. Borio and District Sahebganj.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having it office at
Karamtoli, Morabadi, P.O., P.S. Morabadi & District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development
and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman,
having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum &
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its
office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District -
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum &
District -- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 5290 of 2025
----
1. Laxmi Kumari, aged about 30 years, D/o Raju Mahto, R/o House No
32 U, Panderpala Mahto Tola, Bishunpur, PO B.Polytechnic, P.S.
Bank More & District- Dhanbad.
2. Sahin Khatun, aged about 27 years, D/o Md Sarfraj Khan, R/o Village
Barkatha, P.O., P.S. Barkatha & District-Hazaribagh.
3. Manila Kujur, aged about 29 years, D/o Sukra Oraon, R/o Khuti Toli,
Sons, P.O. Mandar, P.S. Chanho & District-Ranchi.
4. Soumya Kumari, aged about 28 years, D/o Satyendra Prasad Yadav,
-: 4 :-
R/o Village Ghagri, P.O. Birbal, P.S. Dhurki & District Garhwa.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through Chief Secretary, having its office at
1st Floor, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O, P.S - Dhurwa & District-
Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development
and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at
Project Bhawan, Dhurwa, P.O., P.S. Dhurwa & District Ranchi.
3. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman,
having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum &
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, having its
office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum & District -
Ranchi, Jharkhand.
5. The Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
having its office at Kali Nagar, Chai Bagan, P.O., P.S. Namkum &
District - Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 5526 of 2025
----
Geeta Kumari, Aged About 29 Years, D/O: Chohan Mahto, R/O:
Banka, PS: Katkamsandi, P.O: Sultana, District: Hazaribagh,
Jharkhand- 825319
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Having Office At Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.& P.S.-
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa Department, Govt. Of Jharkhand, Having Its Office At
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O- Dhurwa, P.S Jagarnnathpur, District-
Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand, Having Its Office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. & PS Dhurwa, District -- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Having its
Office at Kalinagar Chaibagan, PO & P.S Namkum, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
having its office at kalinagar chaibagan, P.O & P.S- Namkum,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 5622 of 2025
----
1. Sana Fatma, Aged About 32 Years, D/O: Mohammad Arman, R/O:
Arman Manzil, Dangal Para, Dumka, P.O+P.S- Dumka, District:
Dumka, Jharkhand- 814101
2. Nisha Kumari, Aged about 29 years, D/O: Sunil Kumar, R/O:
Tungaon, P.O- Jurdag, P.S- Karra Jurdag, District: Khunti,
Jharkhand-835210
3. Pushpa Kumari, Aged about 25 years, D/O: Prem Mahatha, R/O:
-: 5 :-
Kamaldih, P.O- Narayanpur, P.S- Narayanpur, District: Bokaro,
Jharkhand- 827013
4. Sonam Kumari, Aged about 35 years, D/O: Rajendra Prasad Saw,
R/O: Panchayat Kharagdiha Block Jamua, village Kharagdiha post
Kharagdiha, P.O- Kharagdiha, P.S- Jamua Khariodih, District: Deori
Giridih, Jnarkhand- 815314.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, Having Office At Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.& P.S.-
Dhurwa, District Ranchi.
2. The Principal Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa Department, Govt. Of Jharkhand, Having Its Office At
Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O- Dhurwa, P.S Jagarnnathpur, District-
Ranchi.
3. The Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy,
Government of Jharkhand, Having Its Office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S Dhurwa, District -- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
4. The Secretary, Jharkhand staff Selection Commission, Having its
Office at Kalinagar Chaibagan, P.O& P.S Namkum, District Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
5. Controller of examination, Jharkhand staff selection commission,
having its office at kalinagar chaibagan, P.O & P.S- Namkum,
District- Ranchi, Jharkhand.
... ... Respondents
WITH
W.P.(S) No. 5629 of 2025
----
Vandana Kumari, aged about 37 years, Wife of Ranjit Kumar Yadav,
Resident of Village - Thengadih, P.O. - Sirsa, P.S. Pathrol, District-
Deoghar, Jharkhand - 815353.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Jharkhand, having office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa,
P.S. - Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
2. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and
Rajbhasa, Govt. of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O. -- Dhurwa, PS. --Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
3. Secretary, Department of Women Child Development & Social
Security, Government of Jharkhand, having office at Project Building,
Dhurwa, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. - Jagarnathpur, Ranchi.
4. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, through its Secretary, having
its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. - Namkum,
Ranchi.
5. Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission,
having its office at Chaibagan Gali, Kali Nagar, P.O. & P.S. -
Namkum, Ranchi.
... ... Respondents
----
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Tanya Singh, Advocate
Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Anuj Kumar Trivedi, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar Gupta, Advocate
Ms. Soniya Hansda, Advocate
Mr. Subham Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Amitesh Kumar Geasen, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate General
Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG
Mr. Ashutosh Anand, AAG
Ms. Pinky Tiwary, AC to AG
Mr. Rahul Saboo, GP II
Mr. Abhilash Kumar, AC to GP II
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Arpan Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Prince Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Jay Prakash, Advocate
Mr. Shubham Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Kazi Asif Iqubal, Advocate
Mr. Gyandev Raj, Advocate
----
11/19.12.2025 In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners have challenged
the action of the respondents by which, according to the petitioners, hindrance
is created on the selection process to the post of Lady Supervisors. The
petitioners in this batch of writ petitions have different prayers.
2. During the course of argument, it has been submitted that the
cadre is popularly known as Lady Supervisor. The appointment is governed by
the Rules, which is known as Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted
Employees (Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and
Service Conditions) Rules, 2019. It is admitted by the parties that the said
Rules provide that the entire cadre is reserved only for women. This means
that 100% posts in this cadre, as per rules, is reserved for females.
3. Though the issue in these writ petitions are not the challenge to
the 100% reservation, or the rules which provides 100% reservations, but
being a Constitutional Court, a question has cropped up as to whether an
entire cadre can be fully reserved on the basis of gender. Even if the said
provision or the law is not challenged, whether a Constitutional Court can
question the legality and validity of the said law?
4. In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) versus
State of Bihar & Others reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1882, at
paragraphs 30 and 31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"30. Law is well settled that a law, be it a primary
legislation or a subordinate legislation (rules,
regulations or orders made under the authority of a
primary legislation), cannot be struck down by a
court unless there is a direct challenge to such
legislation. It is also a well-established principle of
Constitutional Law that constitutional questions
should not be decided in vacuum and that they must
be decided only if and when they arise properly on
the pleadings of a given case and where it is found
necessary to decide them for a proper decision of the
case.
31. However, the common thread that runs through
all these precedents laying down such law is that the
party aggrieved in each case, seeking relief from the
court, omitted to lay a challenge to the law and the
said omission impeded the grant of relief to such
party."
After holding the above, at paragraph 32, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the above judgment, has raised a question that in a case where the
party aggrieved seeks enforcement of a provision of a rule, which is seemingly
unconstitutional, would he raise the plea of its unconstitutionality? The Hon'ble
Supreme Court went on to hold that it would be imprudent for him to do so,
hence the answer cannot but be in the negative. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that in the said case, the Division Bench of the High Court found the
offending proviso to be so obtrusively unconstitutional that notwithstanding
absence of a specific challenge thereto, it proceeded to declare the same as
void. Paragraph 32 of the said judgment in the case of Bihar Rajya Dafadar
Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) (supra) reads as under: -
"32. The situation here is completely different. The
respondent no. 7 was seeking relief from the High
Court relying on the offending proviso. In a case
where the party aggrieved seeks enforcement of a
provision of a rule, which is seemingly
unconstitutional, would he raise the plea of its
unconstitutionality? It would be imprudent for him to
do so and hence, the answer cannot but be in the
negative. While considering the plea of the
respondent no.7, the Division Bench found the
offending proviso to be so obtrusively
unconstitutional that notwithstanding absence of a
specific challenge thereto, it proceeded to declare
the same as void. Although the Division Bench had
no occasion to refer to the decisions that we have
referred to above, nothing much turns on it. The
Division Bench must be presumed to be aware of the
law on the subject that appointment cannot be
claimed as a hereditary right and, thus, without even
a challenge being laid to the offending proviso
thought of striking it down. We do not see any
illegality in such an approach."
Further, at paragraph 33 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution also, but it held that as a
constitutional Court in very exceptional cases patent illegality of a subordinate
legislation can be looked into. It has held that the duty of the Writ Court is not
only to enforce fundamental rights of individuals, but it is equally the duty of the
Writ Courts to guard against the breach of fundamental rights. It has been held
that the power is plenary. Further, it has been held that in a given case, if it is
found that there has been an egregious violation of Fundamental Right as a
result of operation of a subordinate legislation, it is the duty of the Writ Court to
deliver justice by declaring a subordinate legislation as void to safeguard the
right of others, but it should be done in rare case. The extracts from paragraph
33 of the said judgment are quote hereunder: -
"33. ... ... ... After all, as the sentinel on the qui vive, it
is not only the duty of the writ courts in the country
to enforce Fundamental Rights of individuals, who
approach them, but it is equally the duty of the writ
courts to guard against breach of Fundamental
Rights of others by the three organs of the State.
This power is a plenary power resident in all the
Constitutional Courts. Should, in a given case, it be
found that there has been an egregious violation of a
Fundamental Right as a result of operation of a
subordinate legislation and the issue is concluded by
a binding decision of this Court, we consider it the
duty of the writ courts to deliver justice by declaring
the subordinate legislation void to safeguard rights
of others who might not still have been affected
thereby. We reiterate, it can only be done rarely and
in cases which stand out from the ordinary."
5. In this matter, as I have found and it is admitted that the entire
cadre is reserved for women. Cadre is of supervisors and not of any ground
level workers and the reservation is 100%. Further all the posts are entry
levelo and have to be filled up by open advertisement with 100% reservation.
6. The entire scheme is under ICDS Scheme for the young children
and mother. Page 33 of the rejoinder dated 14.10.2025 projects the nature of
work, which a Supervisor has to perform. Be it noted that there is a three tier
system, i.e., Village Level, Cluster Level and Block Level. Village Level work is
done by Anganbari workers, who are in direct contact with the beneficiaries.
Next level is the Supervisors, who are Cluster Level and the third is Block
Level, which is Child Development Project Officers. This Cluster Level cadre is
the subject matter of these writ petitions, which is supervisory in nature. As per
the said document, the work, which the Supervisors have to perform are as
follows: -
Guide AWW in identifying village requirements and
include them in Annual Plan and Monthly Plans.
Prepare plans to meet the needs of children in the AWCs
allocated to the Supervisor for implementation and
Monitoring.
Guide preparation of Village/gram/urban centre ICDS
Mission Plans.
Collate the indents received for requirement of the SNP
for AWCs.
Distribution of nutrition supplements.
Organise fixed monthly Village Mother-Child day.
Convergence with ASHAs, ANMs, SSA and other service
providers at village level.
Collection of Feedback through ICDS accreditation
systems and community public hearings.
Coordinate with CDPO for Implementation and
Monitoring of the scheme at Cluster level.
Coordinate with CDPO for identification of required
infrastructure, manpower and nutrient requirements.
Facilitate maintenance of registers in prescribed
formats.
Coordinate with village leaders and local institutions
such a Mahila Mandals, Panchayats, Primary Schools
and Youth Clubs and involve them in ICDS programme.
Ascertain the number of immunized children and report
it to the CDPO.
Organise monthly meetings of AWW of her circle with
the participation of concerned LHVs and ANMs.
Visit every Anganwadi once in a month.
Guide AWW in conducting survey and listing
beneficiaries.
Help AWW develop interesting material to engage
children.
Visit homes of malnourished children and counsel
parents along with AWW.
Help AWW conduct various Days earmarked for specific
purpose on monthly basis attend at least two ECCE Days
every month.
Ensure proper storage of food stocks, medicines, first
aid kits etc.
Coordinate with the VHSNC
Overall Progress in Implementation with regard to
o Coverage of all habitation/hamlets in the block
o Cover all the eligible beneficiaries
o Provide quality supplementary nutrition
o Nutrional status of children-weighment, issue of
joint mother and child protection cards,
addressing moderate and severely
undernourished children, measures being taken
to address the issues.
o Number of AWCs providing THR, Morning Snack
o Organising Village and Health Nutrition Days
Review overall implementation of the scheme at the
Cluster level with the help of AWC - MPRs, Annual State
Reports, AWC meeting minutes etc.
Ensure proper storage and distribution of
Supplementary Nutrients and other medical kits and
equipment that is required at AWC
Establishing and adhering to grievance redressal
mechanism.
7. Nature of the work as enunciated and the documents of ICDS do
not differentiate between male and female, so far as supervisory post is
concerned. From the nature of work, it cannot be said that these supervisory
tasks can only be performed by females, to the exclusion of males. Further,
from the nature of the work, it is also clear that it is not the case where women
only can perform such job.
8. Article 16 of the Constitution of India grants equal opportunity in
the matter of public employment. Article 16 (2) of the Constitution of India
provides that there shall be no discrimination in the matters of public
employment, on the basis of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, etc. Provision
has been made for reservation. Article 16(3) onwards of the Constitution of
India are the provisions, which provide for reservation in employment. Thus,
any reservation in employment is guided and governed by Article 16 of the
Constitution of India.
9. Article 15 of the Constitution of India prohibits discrimination on
the grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, etc. Article 15(3) of the Constitution of
India provides that nothing in the said Article shall prevent the State from
making any special provision for women and children.
10. During course of argument, learned counsel for the State tried to
put forth a plea that this 100% reservation of women in the Cadre of
Supervisors, is in terms of Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India. Article
15(3) of the Constitution of India provides for making special provision and it
also provides to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion, race,
caste, sex etc, whereas Article 16 of the Constitution of India deals with
employment and said Article also deals with reservation in employment.
11. In the case of Indra Sawhney and Others versus Union of India
and Others reported in (1992) Supp. (3) SCC 217, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that reservation in public employment cannot exceed more than
50%, as observed in paragraph 809 of the said judgment. In the said judgment
at paragraph 514, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"514. It is necessary to add here a word about
reservations for women. Clause (2) of Article 16 bars
reservation in services on the ground of sex. Article
15(3) cannot save the situation since all reservations
in the services under the State can only be made
under Article 16. Further, women come from both
backward and forward classes. If reservations are
kept for women as a class under Article 16(1), the
same inequitous phenomenon will emerge. The
women from the advanced classes will secure all the
posts, leaving those from the backward classes
without any. It will amount to indirectly providing
statutory reservations for the advanced classes as
such, which is impermissible under any of the
provisions of Article 16. However, there is no doubt
that women are a vulnerable section of the society,
whatever the strata to which they belong. They are
more disadvantaged than men in their own social
class. Hence reservations for them on that ground
would be fully justified, if they are kept in the quota
of the respective class, as for other categories of
persons, as explained above. If that is done, there is
no need to keep a special quota for women as such
and whatever the percentage-limit on the
reservations under Article 16, need not be
exceeded."
12. Further, it is clear that while granting any reservation and also
making special provision, the classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped from others
left out of the group. The differentia must have a rational nexus with the object
sought to be achieved by the statute in which such classification is made.
13. As held earlier, the cadre in issue is of Supervisors and ICDS also
does not provide placing only women on the said cadre. It is also to be seen
whether there is any nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and what is
the rationale for reserving 100% post, considering the nature of work. Thus, in
my opinion in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division) (supra),
the validity of the provision in Jharkhand Child Development Non-Gazetted
Employees (Lady Supervisor) Service Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and
Service Conditions) Rules, 2019, whereby 100% reservation for women has
been provided, can be looked into in these writ petitions. The questions, which
need to be looked into are: -
i. Whether an entire cadre, by Rules, can be
reserved for a particular class, based on sex,
caste etc.?
ii. Whether Article 15(3) of the Constitution of
India gives special power to reserve posts in
appointment for women?
iii. Whether Article 15(3) of the Constitution of
India operates independently of Article 16 of
the Constitution of India?
iv. If it is held that Article 15(3) of the Constitution
of India and the powers of reservation under
Article 16 of the Constitution of India operate
on different field and are independent to each
other, can the combined reservation be 100%
as done in the instant case?
v. Whether Jharkhand Child Development Non-
Gazetted Employees (Lady Supervisor) Service
Cadre (Appointment, Promotion and Service
Conditions) Rules, 2019, which provides for
100% reservation of a particular cadre is valid
or not?
vi. Any other question which may arise in course
of adjudging the above issues.
14. Rule 34(2)(b) of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules provides that
writ petition, where vires or validity of an Act of Legislature or any Subordinate
Legislation is under challenge, has to be heard by a Division Bench. Further,
Rule 34(3)(b) also provides that all matters which are referred to a Division
Bench are also to be heard by a Division Bench.
15. Considering the opinion, which has been expressed by me in this
batch of cases, I am of the view that this matter needs to be heard by a
Division Bench of this Court. Thus, all these writ petitions be listed before a
Division Bench with the approval of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Ranchi
Dated 19th December, 2025
Kumar/Cp-02
AFR
Uploaded on 19.12.2025
