Supreme Court Overturns Bihar High Court Decision: Anganwadi Sevika Reinstated

The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has reinstated Anjum Ara, an Anganwadi Sevika, whose appointment was earlier quashed due to a provision in the 2011 Guidelines. The Court emphasized the importance of legal consistency and set aside the High Court’s decision, marking a crucial victory for employment rights.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when the District Programme Officer of Katihar, Bihar, announced the selection process for Anganwadi Workers/Sevikas on October 17, 2012. Anjum Ara applied for the post and secured 80.60 marks, while another applicant, respondent no. 8, obtained only 48.60 marks. Based on merit, Ara was appointed on July 2, 2013.

However, respondent no. 8 challenged Ara’s appointment, arguing that she was ineligible because her father was a Panchayat teacher earning Rs. 6,000 per month. The challenge was based on Clause 4.9 of the Anganwadi Sevika Guidelines, 2011, which barred candidates whose family members were employed with the state government.

Legal Journey

Challenge Before Administrative and Judicial Authorities

Respondent no. 8 filed a representation before the District Programme Officer, seeking the cancellation of Ara’s appointment.
After rejection, an appeal was filed before the Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Purnea.
The appellate authority, on July 30, 2015, ruled in favor of respondent no. 8, setting aside Ara’s appointment.
Ara filed a writ petition (CWJC No. 17585 of 2015) in the Patna High Court, which was dismissed on August 23, 2016.
She then filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 1853 of 2016), which was again dismissed on November 28, 2022.

Supreme Court’s Review

Petitioner’s Arguments

Anjum Ara’s counsel, Mr. Shoeb Alam, argued that:

The only reason for disqualification was her father’s employment, which was no longer valid because Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines was struck down by the Patna High Court on September 27, 2022, in CWJC No. 13210 of 2014.
Since the clause was declared unconstitutional, her appointment should not have been canceled on its basis.
Both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court erred by ignoring this legal development.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Bihar state government and respondent no. 8 opposed the appeal, stating:

The appellant had not originally challenged Clause 4.9 in her earlier appeals.
The appellate authority was correct in disqualifying her based on the clause that was in force at the time.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

“When the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines was struck down by the High Court vide judgment dated 27th September 2022, it ceased to exist. As such, it was not necessary for the appellant to challenge the validity of the same inasmuch as the same was already held to be invalid by the very same High Court.”

“We find that both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have grossly erred in dismissing the writ petition as well as LPA filed by the appellant.”

Final Judgment by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled:

The appeal was allowed.
The judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Patna High Court were set aside.
Ara’s writ petition (CWJC No. 17585 of 2015) and LPA No. 1853 of 2016 were allowed.
The appellate authority’s order of July 30, 2015, was quashed.
Ara was directed to be reinstated immediately.
She would not receive back wages but would retain continuity in service for all other purposes.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling establishes that once a law or guideline is struck down, its previous application cannot be a valid ground for action. The judgment reinforces employment rights by ensuring that past judicial rulings are given full effect.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision is a landmark judgment in employment law, ensuring that unconstitutional provisions cannot be used retroactively to harm individuals. By reinstating Anjum Ara, the Court upheld the principle of legal consistency and fairness in public employment.

Petitioner Name: Anjum Ara.
Respondent Name: The State of Bihar and Others.
Judgment By: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Sandeep Mehta.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 08-01-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: anjum-ara-vs-the-state-of-bihar-a-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-01-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in Judgment by Sandeep Mehta
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category