Case Title: Anjum Ara v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
Case No.: SLP(C) No. 2233 of 2023
Decided On: 8.01.2024
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Facts of the Case:
In this case, the appellant is contesting the denial of her appointment as Anganwari Sevika on the grounds that a provision in the 2011 Guidelines—which the High Court had invalidated in a different case—is no longer legitimate. The writ petition and appeal judgements were annulled, and the appellant—who had not contested the provision separately—was restored by the court. The appellant was granted continuity in service for all other purposes, but the court ordered her prompt reinstatement, although without pay for the time she was unemployed.
Legal Provisions
Clause 4.9 of the Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011, was challenged on the grounds that it purportedly violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The appellant filed an appeal for reinstatement when the High Court invalidated Clause 4.9 in its ruling on September 27, 2022, stating that it was not reasonable to disqualify her based on the now-void clause.
Issues
The legal issues pertain to the appellant’s appeal to his disqualification based on Clause 4.9 of the Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011, which the High Court ultimately determined to be in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution. The main issue is whether the appellant should be disqualified for failing to oppose the section individually before the High Court, even though the High Court has already invalidated the clause in a related case. In the end, the court rules in the appellant’s favour, highlighting the fallacy of the lower courts’ rationale.
Courts analysis and decision
The court determined that the appellant’s disqualification under section 4.9 of the Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011 was not upholdable because the High Court had already invalidated the same section in a ruling dated September 27, 2022. The appellant was not necessary to independently appeal the disputed section before the High Court, the court found, because it was no longer legitimate. As a result, the court granted the appeal, overturned the contested decisions, and ordered the appellant to be reinstated with continuous employment despite being denied pay for the time she was unemployed.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Aastha Ganesh Tiwari
