In Anjum Ara Vs. State of Bihar, Supreme Court's bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta observed that "The impugned judgments and orders dated 28th November 2022 in LPA No. 1853 of 2016 in CWJC No. 17585 and dated 23rd August 2016 in CWJC No. 17585 of 2015, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna are quashed and set aside." The judgement was authored by Justice Gavai. It was delivered on January 8, 2024. The former judgement in Anjum Ara Vs. State of Bihar was authored by Justice P. B. Bajanthri as part of a Division Bench comprising of Justice Purnendu Singh. It was delivered on November 28, 2022. The latter judgement in Anjuam Ara Vs. State of Bihar was authored by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi. It was delivered on August 23, 2016.
The Court observed, "we find that the judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench are not sustainable in law." It also set aside the order dated July 30, 2015 passed by the Appellate Authority in Bihar and directed that the appellant be reinstated forthwith.
The Supreme Court heard the appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 28th November 2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal(LPA) No. 1853 of 2016 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case (CWJC) No. 17585 of 2015, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellant.
The facts are as under: On October 17, 2012, District Programme Officer, Katihar published a notice for selection of Anganwari Workers/Sevika. Pursuant to the said notice, the present appellant as well as respondent No. 8 herein applied for the said post in the selection process. The appellant has secured 80.60, whereas respondent No. 8 has secured 48.60 marks. The appellant was appointed to the post of Anganwari Sevika on July 2, 2013. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of appointment issued in favour of the appellant, respondent No.8 submitted a representation before the District Programme Officer, Katihar praying for cancellation of the order of appointment dated July 2, 2013 issued in favour of the appellant. She also prayed for a direction to issue an order of appointment in her favour. The same came to be rejected by the District Programme Officer, Katihar vide order dated November 13, 2014. Being aggrieved thereby, respondent No. 8 preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority–Court of Joint Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Purnea. The Appellate Authority, vide order dated July 30, 2015, allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.8 while setting aside the order of appointment dated July 2, 2013 issued in favour of the appellant. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed a writ petition being CWJC No. 17585 of 2015 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.
The Single Judge, vide order dated August 23, 2016, dismissed the said writ petition. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed LPA No.1853 of 2016 in CWJC No. 17585 of 2015 before the learned Division Bench of the High Court. The same was also dismissed vide the impugned order.
The appellant's counsel submitted that the only ground on which the appellant was held to be disqualified was that her father was a Panchayat Teacher and he was drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. It is submitted that Clause 4.9 of Anganwari Sevika Guidelines, 2011, which imposed certain restrictions, was found to be in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by the High Court vide order dated September 27, 2022 passed in CWJC No. 13210 of 2014. This was ignored by the Division Bench of the High Court.
The Supreme Court observed: "7. 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. 8. Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines imposed a restriction on such persons whose family member or members have secured appointment with the State Government or any organization of the State. The said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines came to be challenged before the High Court by way of CWJC No. 13210 of 2014. The High Court, vide judgment and order dated 27th September 2022, after elaborate discussion, struck down the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines. 9. The only ground on which the appellant has been non-suited was that the appellant had not challenged the said Clause 4.9 of the 2011 Guidelines before the High Court. We find that the reasoning as adopted by the learned Division Bench is totally unsustainable."
It observed: "10. 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."
But the Court concluded that "the appellant would not be entitled to wages for the period during which she was out of employment, she would be entitled to continuity in service for all other purposes."
No comments:
Post a Comment