IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3981 of 2008 ANITA KUMARI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, WIFE OF SHRI ASHOK CHANDRA NIRALA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHAINPURA, KESARIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT PALI KHURD, P.O. JAMUARA, P.S. NARHAT, DISTRICT NAWADAH. ---- PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, MAGADH DIVISION, GAYA. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH. 5. THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR, NAWADAH. 6. THE DISTRICT WELFARE OFFICER, NAWADAH. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, NARHAT BLOCK, DISTRICT NAWADAH. 8. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, NARHAT, DISTRICT NAWADAH 9. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT PALI KHURD, NARHAT BLOCK, DISTRICT NAWADAH. 10.THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, PALI KHURD, NARHAT BLOCK, DISTRICT NAWADAH. For the petitioner :- Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the State :- G.P. 10 ----------- 2 21.5.2010 The only question that arises in this writ application refers to the interpretation of Sub clause ‘Ga’ and ‘Anga’ of Clause 3 of the guidelines for appointment and functioning of Anganbari Sevikas/Sahaikas. Clause 3 of the guidelines deals with the conditions and qualifications of Anganbari Sevikas which reads as follows: 3 vk¡xuokM+h lsfodkvksa ds p;u ds fy, vgZrk;sa@’kÙksZa%& (d) vk¡xuokM+h lsfodk dh u;wure ’kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk izosf’kdk mÙkh.kZ gSA flQZ vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tu tkfr ds lsfodkvksa ds fy, U;wure ;ksX;rk izosf’kdk vuqÙkh.kZ gSA ([k) vk¡xuokM+h lsfodk mez] p;u gsrq vkgwr vke lHkk dh oÔZ ds izFke tuojh dks U;wure& 18 oÔZ rFkk vf/kdre& 40 oÔZ gksxhA (x) vk¡xuokM+h lsfodk ml Vksyk@xk¡o@egYyk dh LFkk;h fuoklh gksxh] ftl Vksyk@xk¡o@egYyk esa vk¡xuokM+h dsUnz vofLFkr gks] ;kfu mls vk¡xuokM+h dsUnz dh lsok {ks= dk fuoklh gksuk vfuok;Z gSA 2 (?k) vk¡xuokM+h lsfodk Vksyk@xk¡o@egYyk dh cgq gksxhA dqok¡jh yM+fd;ksa dk p;u bl in ds fy, ugha fd;k tk;sxkA lsfodk ,oa mlds ifr dk uke mDr Vksyk@xk¡o@egYyk ds fy, cus ernkrk lwph esa gksuk pkfg,A ernkrk lwph esa uke ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa lsfodk ,oa mlds ifr dks mDr Vksyk@xk¡o@egYyk ds fuoklh ds fy, pquko vk;ksx dk QksVks izek.k i= ;k p;u gsrq vkosnu tek djus ds fnu rd vapykf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr vkoklh; izek.k i= (tks N% ekg iwoZ ls igys dk fuxZr u gks) nsuk vfuok;Z gksxkA (M-) yksd lsodksa (eqf[k;k] iapk;r lfefr ds lnL;@okMZ lnL;@ftyk ifjÔn ds lnL; vkfn Lo;a ;k muds fj’rsnkj)] fofHkUu ljdkjh lkefxz;ksa ds foØsrkvksa (tSls tu forj.k iz.kkyh foØsrk] ?kqeUrq fdjklu rsy ds foØsrk (Dealer)] vUrjfoHkkxh; Mkd[kkuk dehZ (Intra-departmental Post Office Employee bR;kfn) ljdkjh ,oa v)Zljdkjh lsodksa ds fj’rsnkj ;Fkk] csVh@iRuh@iq=o/kw@ikS=o/kw dk p;u bl in ds fy, ugha fd;k tk;sxkA (p) lsfodk ,oa lgkf;dk vkil esa fdlh izdkj ls laca/kh@fj’rsnkj ugha gksaxs] ;Fkk lkl&cgq] uun&HkkHkh] cgu ,oa Hkrhth vkfnA (N) fo/kok mEehnokj (llqjky@ek;dk esa jg jgh gks) dks vius ifr dk e`R;q izek.k i= rFkk iqufoZokg ugha djus laca/kh eqf[k;k@okMZ lnL; (’kgjh {ks=) dk izek.k i=] vuqyXud ßdÞ esa tek djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA blh izdkj ifjR;Drk mEehnokj dks Hkh vius ifjR;Drk gksus dk eqf[k;k@okMZ lnL; (’kgjh {ks=) ls izkIr izek.k i= vuqyXud ß[kÞ esa tek djuk gksxkA (t) vk¡xuokM+h lsfodk ds :i esa p;fur gksus okyh efgyk dks ’kkjhfjd ,oa ekufld :i ls LoLFk gksuk pkfg, ,oa mls dksbZ xaHkhj Nwr dh chekjh ugha gksuh pkfg,A p;fur lsfodk dks ,d lIrkg ds vUnj bl vk’k; dk izek.k i=] ljdkjh fpfdRld }kjk fuxZr] izLrqr djuk gksxk] rHkh mUgsa euksu;u (Nomination) i= fuxZr fd;k tk;sxkA 3 Clause Ga envisages that the Anganbari Sevikas should be appointed from the locality (area), village and should be a permanent resident of the aforesaid area/village where the centre is located. That is to say it is essential that the Anganbari Sevika should be living in the area where the centre is situated. Clause ‘Gha’ on the other hand indicates that unmarried girls cannot be appointed on the post of Anganbari Sevikas. Sub Clause ‘Anga’ on the other hand puts a ban on the appointment of Anganbari Sevikas who are related to the Mukhiya, member of a Panchayat Samiti, member of a Board, member of the Zila Parishad belonging to the family of a P.D.S. dealer, as well as persons working in inter departmental post office and further puts a blanket ban on appointment of a daughter, wife, daughter-in-law, grand daughter-in-law of a person who is in government service. The aim of the guidelines for the purposes of making appointment of Anganbari Sevikas is that the person belonging to the locality should be appointed according to the mapping of the village which indicates that the person belonging to the majority community living in the village should be appointed to the post. In other words it means that the incumbent must be necessarily a resident of the village so that she is familiar with the residents and is available in the Centre, therefore, there is a ban on appointment of unmarried girls, as they may leave the village after their marriage. In my opinion, the ban on appointment of unmarried girls is not quite justified. There may be a case where the girl has remained unmarried due to certain 4 circumstances and there is no likelihood that she would ever be married. Such a blanket ban is perhaps unreasonable however, that should be considered in an individual case as and when the matter comes up for consideration. The main question that arises in this case is whether there can be a complete ban on appointment of persons who is father, mother or other closely related to the family members who are in government service. A complete blanket ban in my opinion would be against the principles of Article 14. The equality is the back bone of the rights of the citizen and has been duly emphasized by various judgments and decisions of the Apex Court and the High Court. There can be a reasonable classification in which certain categories/classes of persons can be granted benefits excluding others. The classification so made by any authority should be based on intelligible differentia and should bear a nexus with the objects which it seeks to achieve. As far as Sub-clause ‘Anga’ of Clause 3 of the guidelines is concerned, it is to some extent reasonable to ban the appointment of a lady who is related to Mukhiya, member of Panchayat Samiti etc. Such persons holding posts described in sub clause ‘Anga’ of clause 3 necessarily live in the village or the place where the centre is situated, and as such they may influence the decision making process of selection of an Anganbari Sevika, and may also have some clout and interfere with the working of the centre. A ban envisaged in the later part of Clause ‘Anga’ is in my 5 opinion against the principle of Article 14. There may be several cases where the concerned person working in the Government service, as in the present case, who are working outside the State or the district where the appointment is to take place. To say that such a person would not be entitled to appointment would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, this Court notices the fact that the petitioner is the daughter-in-law of the village. The order contained in annexure-4 dated 26.12.2007 cannot be sustained amongst others on the ground that a girl in Indian society once married lives with her husband and in-laws and she is given recognition on the basis of her marital status after her marriage. The reason that the petitioner’s father was working in the government service cannot be held to be a good ground for setting aside her order of termination unless it was found that he is posted in the village where the Centre is situated and holds a position which is likely to influence the decision making process. This Court also finds that the ban as imposed by sub clause ‘Anga’ is not in consonance with objectives for which the scheme has been floated which is to give health care to women, girl child and other down trodden persons of the society. The findings above do not mean that the Government cannot impose a ban on appointment of Anganbari Sevika/Sahaika whose family members are in government service, but the ban should be worded in a reasonable manner, such as, it may be said that persons who are posted in the 6 village or in the block where the centre lies would not be entitled for the purpose of being appointed as Anganbari Sevikas. The said observations are only by way of an illustration. This Court finds that the ban imposes by sub clause ‘Anga’ of Clause 3 of the guidelines of 2007 is unconstitutional and as such strikes down that part of sub clause ‘Anga’. In the result, the impugned order contained in annexure- 4 dated 26.12.2007 is quashed. This application is allowed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)