[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Neelam Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 30 January, 2026
Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2026:RJ-JD:5554-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18949/2018
Beena Bhatt W/o Shyam Sundar Sharma, Aged About 49 Years,
Bijoliya, Bhilwara. (Raj).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Women And Child Development Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Integrated Child Development Projects,
Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Director, Women And Child Development
Department, Bhilwara.
4. The Assistant Director, Women And Child Development
Department, Bhilwara.
5. The Child Development Project Officer, Integrated Child
Development Services, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.
6. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur through its
Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 508/2019
1. Champa Ojha D/o Shiv Chand Ojha, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Mataji Mandir Road, Osiyan, Aanganwadi
Kendra 3, Osiyan, Teliyo Ka Bas, Osiyan, District
Jodhpur.
2. Hemkanwar W/o Ramkrishan Ratnu,, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Chopasani Charnan, Chopasani Charnan
Kendra 1 District Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Women And Child Development, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11503/2019
1. Neelam Sharma D/o Babu Lal Sharma, Aged About 50
Years, By Caste Brahmin, Resident Of Ward No.37,
Chuna Fatak, Hanumangarh Junction - 335 512.
2. Laxmi Devi D/o Vasu Dev, Aged About 45 Years, By
Caste Charan, Resident Of Vaidya Charnan, Via Khetasar,
Tehsil Osiyan, District Jodhpur.
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:55:20 PM)
(Downloaded on 04/02/2026 at 08:45:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5554-DB] (2of 5) [CW-18949/2018]
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Women And Child Development, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Achraj Singh Saluja
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Patel
Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG with
Mr. Devesh Mehra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
30/01/2026
1. Vide the instant common judgment/order, the above titled
bunch of writ petitions are being decided together as not only the
facts are similar, but so are the issues and the law points involved
therein.
2. The petitioners inter alia seek issuance of an appropriate writ
and/or direction commanding the respondents to treat the them
as being within the prescribed age limit for appointment to the
post of Supervisor (Female) to be filled by way of Supervisor
(Female) (Anganwadi Karyakarta Quota) Direct Recruitment
Examination-2018. Direction is also sought to fill up the posts of
Supervisor (Female) by way of direct recruitment in accordance
with Rules 6 and 30, and consequently to fill up the posts through
screening instead of a written examination by holding of a written
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:55:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5554-DB] (3of 5) [CW-18949/2018]
examination pursuant to Notification dated 24.08.2018 as illegal
and also declare the establishment of the Staff Selection Board by
Notification dated 19.01.2014 as ultra vires Article 14 and the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
3. Petitioners claim as deemed to be in continuous service with
effect from respective dates of original appointment viz Beena
Bhatt - 04.04.1988, Champa Ojha - 23.10.2000, HemKanwar -
02.01.2002, Neelam Sharma - 23.08.2007, Laxmi Devi -
05.02.2002.
3.1. In the year 2018, the respondents issued an advertisement
dated 01.10.2018 for recruitment to the post of Supervisor
(Female) under the Anganwadi Karyakarta quota, prescribing an
upper age limit of 40 years and providing for selection through a
written examination. It is contended that the said procedure is
contrary to Rules 6 and 30 of the Rajasthan Woman and Child
Development (State and Subordinate Service) Rules, 1998, which
contemplate selection of in-service Anganwadi workers through
screening. Though a notification dated 24.08.2018 sought to
introduce a written examination for in-service candidates, the
same was not published in the Official Gazette and, therefore,
lacks legal force.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the rival
contentions and perused the case file.
5. The present set of petitions were instituted in the year 2018,
assailing the selection process for filling up the posts of Supervisor
(Female) (Anganwadi Karyakarta) pursuant to advertisement
dated 01.10.2018. It emerges that, with the mere passage of
time, the first relief sought by the petitioners i.e. permission to
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:55:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5554-DB] (4of 5) [CW-18949/2018]
participate in the selection process by granting age relaxation of 5
years and 10 years in case of General Category women and for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
Women respectively, over and above the prescribed age limit of 40
years as mentioned in the notification, has become wholly
infructuous. Not only has the entire selection process been
concluded, but, in the absence of any interim relief granted by this
Court, the selected candidates have already joined their respective
posts.
6. In response to a query put by us, learned counsel for the
respondents submits that no posts were kept vacant for the
petitioners.
7. It is also borne out that the petitioners are presently between
55 and 57 years of age and are far beyond the relaxable age limit,
even if such concession were to be extended.
8. Turning now to the challenge to the Staff Selection Board, the
same also does not warrant interference. The issue is no longer
res integra, as it stands settled by a Division Bench judgment of
this Court in Deepak Kumar Chhangani & Ors1. The operative
part of the same reads as under:
"19. In the present case, the functions of the Board are spelt out by Rule 8
of the 2014, Rules, which begins with a non-obstante clause, overriding all
other rules. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any rules
"governing and direct recruitment, the recruitment to the post of
subordinate and ministerial services as may be specified by the
Government, from time to time, shall be made by the Board." In the opinion
of this court, this rule, which has the force of law, overrides all other rules
in regard to matters provided for by it; furthermore, this provides the
exclusion of the sort contemplated by proviso to Article 320(3) of the
Constitution of India. As a consequence, it is held that the second challenge
of the petitioners, i.e. legality and constitutionally of the 2014 Rules; has no
merit; that too is rejected."
1 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17049/2018 Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:55:20 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5554-DB] (5of 5) [CW-18949/2018]
9. Regarding the other relief sought by the petitioners, the same
also has no significance in view of what has been observed herein
above. On all counts, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly,
dismissed.
10. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand disposed
of.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (ARUN MONGA),J
73-75-Devanshi/-
(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 02:55:20 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
