Case: Kumari Rekha Bharati Vs. The State of Bihar &amp; Ors

3. In the year 2006, an advertisement was issued by the Mukhiya / Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mirapur (Kumrapakar) Panchayat, inviting applications for appointment of Anganwadi Sevika in Panchayat Centre No.43/09 of Gram Panchayat Mirapur, Block Muraul, district Muzaffarpur. For the aforesaid purpose, a merit list was prepared in which 9th Respondent herein, was placed at Sl.No.01 and the appellant was at Sl.No.02.4. In first round of litigation, when the appellant was appointed, the same was questioned by the 9th Respondent by filing a complaint. Based on the complaint, the appointment of the appellant was cancelled by the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 09.01.2008. When the cancellation was challenged, High Court in CWJC No.3408 of 2008, while quashing the termination of the appellant, issued directions to the District Magistrate to pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur has passed orders on 20.03.2013 relying on clause 3 (Anga) of guidelines dated 03.10.2006, holding that the 9th Respondent herein, was ineligible for appointment, on the ground that at the relevant time, her father was a government teacher. The order of the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur was confirmed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur vide order dated 30.10.2013.5. As against the order of cancellation of the appointment, as confirmed by the Appellate Authority, 9 th Respondent herein, has filed a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by order dated 07.09.2016 passed in CWJC No.2120 of 2014. The order of the learned Single Judge was subject matter of Letters Patent Appeal No. 1988 of 2016. By impugned order dated 26.04.2017, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein, confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. Thus, the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal before the High Court, is appellant before this Court in the present appeal.

Reasoning:
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the impugned order and other material placed on record.10. It is not in dispute that at the relevant time, selections were governed by guidelines, issued by the concerned department on 03.10.2006. From a reading of Clause 3 of the guidelines, it is clear that relatives such as daughter/wife/daughter-in-law of the government servant is ineligible for appointment as Anganwadi Sevika. The learned Single Judge has interpreted Clause 3 of the guidelines and held that the said guidelines are to be applied only for unmarried daughters. Further, it is held that the 9th Respondent after her marriage is residing in the district of Muzaffarpur, which is her matrimonial home. In view of her case that her paternal home is in the district of Vaishali, the High Court was of the view that she is eligible for appointment in the district of Muzaffarpur, as her father was working as a teacher in the district of Vaishali.11. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by interpreting the guidelines has held that, though the paternal home of the 9th Respondent is in the district of Vaishali but after her marriage, she is residing at her matrimonial home in the district of Muzaffarpur, as such she is to be treated as eligible candidate. Such interpretation runs contrary to Clause 3 of the guidelines. For the purpose of considering the eligibility the guideline as indicated under sub-clause (E) is to be construed as it reads. No distinction can be drawn between a married daughter and unmarried daughter for the purpose of considering the eligibility as per the guidelines. It is quite common in rural areas, the paternal home and maternal home may be in the same village sometimes. When the criteria is notified in the guidelines such guidelines have to be interpreted as it is without deviating the same keeping in mind the facts of a particular case. Even the Division Bench has not considered the guidelines in proper perspective and affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge.12. It is brought to our notice that such Clause 3(E) of the guidelines was struck down subsequently by the High Court on 06.05.2010. As much as the selection relates to the year 2006, we have to consider the guidelines which were applicable during the relevant time. At the same time in view of the subsequent development, no direction can be granted to appoint the appellant, and selections are to be made by issuing fresh notification.