Promila Devi vs State of H.P. & Ors.

petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in terms of Annexure P-2, which is the copy of notification dated 29^th February 2016, a selection criteria stood contemplated in the guidelines for engagement of Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers and in terms of the said criteria, two marks were to be awarded to the girl belonging to the family having two daughters without any male issue. He submitted that despite the petitioner fulfilling this condition, which is evident from Annexure P-3, appended with the petition, no marks were allotted to her under the said Head. He submitted that had two marks been allotted to the petitioner under the said Head, her total marks would have been 17.50 and she would have been the most meritorious candidate amongst others and offered appointment against the post of Anganwadi Helper.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order passed by the Appellate Authority and submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as despite the issue of the petitioner having been denied two marks for being mother of two daughters without a male issue was raised before the Appellate Authority, as is evident from the brief facts narrated in the appellate order itself by the Authority, however, this issue was not addressed by the Appellate Authority at all. He, thus, prayed that as the denial of two marks to the petitioner on this count is totally unsustainable in the eyes of law, the act of the respondents of denying two marks to the petitioner under this head be declared as bad in law and after ordering the award of two marks under this head, respondents be directed to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Anganwadi Helper.

As per the record, the private respondents were duly served, but thereafter, they stand proceeded against ex-parte. Respondent No. 6, Champa Devi, has been proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.04.2024 and Smt. Anita Devi, respondent No. 7, stands proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 31.08.2023.

Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has defended the act of the respondents and also the order of the Appellate Authority. He submitted that though there is no denial of the fact that as per the guidelines framed for the appointment of Anganwadi Workers, two marks are provided for a mother who has two girl children and no male issue, however, these marks are given only to those families from which either husband or wife have opted for permanent family planning after the birth of a single daughter or two daughters, in terms of clarification dated 04.06.2018. Learned Additional Advocate General has also referred to this clarification, which is appended with the reply as Annexure R-5. He also argued that petitioner has not challenged the clarification dated 04.06.2018.

When this case was heard on 24.08.2026, the following order was passed:

Today, learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions, in terms whereof, the same stand is being repeated that this benefit is only for those candidates where permanent family planning has been done by the husband or wife after the birth of one or two daughters.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned Additional Advocate General and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as also the documents appended therewith.

In terms of Annexure P-1, which is the marks sheet of the interviews held on 26.07.2021, the selected candidate, i.e. respondent No.6, Smt. Champa Devi secured 16 marks out of 25 and the petitioner secured 15.50 marks out of 25. The petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 2 and one Smt. Anita Devi, respondent No.7, was placed at Sr. No.1 in the waiting panel, as she had secured 15.80 marks.

Perusal of Annexure P-1 demonstrates that no marks were awarded to the petitioner under the Heading "Girl belonging to the families having up to two daughters without any male issue or women having up to two girl children and no male issue.”

Notification dated 29^th February 2016 (Annexure P-2) are the guidelines relating to the appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers, which were in force when the appointment in issue took place. Clause 7 thereof provides the mode and manner in which the marks are to be allotted and selection made. The same reads as under:

In terms of sub-clause (E-1) thereof, two marks are to be given to the girl belonging to the family having two daughters without any male issue. Further, communication Annexure R-5 appended with the reply, dated 04.06.2018, demonstrates that notification Annexure P-2 was amended subsequently and sub-clause (E-1) was amended as below:-

Thus, in terms of the said amendment, now besides a girl belonging to the family having up to two daughters without any male issue, a married woman who had two daughters without any male issue was also eligible for two marks.

Herein, the petitioner was falling under this amended category, i. e. the category of a married woman, who was having two daughters without any male issue. The factum of the petitioner having two daughters and no male issue is borne out from Annexure P-3, which is a certificate issued by Tehsildar, Sarkaghat, dated 14.07.2021, in which it is mentioned that Pramila Devi was having two daughters and no son.

The stand that taken by the State justifying the denial of appointment to the petitioner is that in terms of clarification dated 04.06.2018, this benefit was extendable only to a family in which either the husband or the wife had opted for family planning after the birth of the first daughter or the second daughter. This Court is of the considered view that this clarification cannot come to the rescue of the respondents.

The appointment against the post of Anganwadi Worker or Anganwadi Helper is governed by a Notification that has been issued by Secretary (SJ&E) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. A clarification issued by Director, Women and Child Welfare, can neither supplement nor substitute a Notification issued by Secretary (SJ&E) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Nothing prevented the State Government from carrying out an amendment in the notification dated 29^th February 2016 to the said effect. But in the absence of any such amendment being there in the said Notification i.e. the guidelines governing the appointment of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper, a clarification issued by the Director, Women and Child Welfare, could not have taken away a right which stands High Court of H.P.^{conferred upon the petitioner in terms of the scheme/revised} guidelines relating to the appointment of Anganwadi Worker and Anganwadi Helper.

As far as the order passed by the Appellate Authority is concerned, a perusal thereof demonstrates that the factum of the petitioner having raised the issue of denial of two marks to her for having two daughters was taken note of in Para 2(a)(iii) thereof, but then this issue has not been answered by the Appellate Authority and the order has been announced only on the issue of the income of the selected candidate. Once the Appellate Authority took cognizance of this ground raised by the petitioner in the appeal, the Authority was duty bound to have had answered this issue also. The failure of the Authority to do the needful in this regard renders the order passed by it to be bad in law.

As far as the objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General that there is no challenge to the clarification is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that there is no need for the petitioner to challenge the clarification because, as observed hereinabove, this clarification does not substitute the scheme in High Court of H.P.^{vogue, as in terms of this clarification, the scheme per se was not} amended or altered. Had it been a case that the scheme itself had been amended or altered to the effect as is mentioned in the clarification, then obviously the petitioner was bound to have challenged the scheme, but as the scheme is as it is and it is only on the basis of a clarification and that too issued by an officer other than the officer who notified the guidelines, there was no need for the petitioner to assail the same.

Accordingly, in light of the above discussions, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the denial of two marks to the petitioner under the Heading of “a woman, who was having two girl children and no male issue” is arbitrary, bad and not sustainable in the eyes of law. The clarification relied upon by the State Government, as observed hereinabove also, is of no help to the respondents, as the same cannot supplement or supplant the guidelines in vogue relating to the appointment of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.