CWPOA/580/2020 on 31 December 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

CWPOA No:580 of 2020 Decided on: 31.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________

Giani Devi

...PETITIONER Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh and others

…RESPONDENTS

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.

For the petitioner: Mr. Anil Kumar God, Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Hemant K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3-State.

Mr. Ravi Patial, Advocate, for respondent No. 16.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra and Mr. Rahul, Advocates, for respondents No. 17 to 19.

Respondents No. 5 to 9 and 14 proceeded ex parte vide order dated 15.06.2022.

Respondents No 4, 10 to 13, 15, to proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.07.2022.

Ranjan Sharma, Judge

Petitioner, Giani Devi, had initially filed an Original Application No 5705 of 2016 before Learned State Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court, as CWPOA No 580 of 2020, seeking following reliefs:

“(a). That the Respondents may kindly be directed to issue the regular appointment order in favour of the applicant to the post of supervisor w.e.f. the date on which the respondent No 4 to 25 has offered the regular appointment.

(b) . That the appointment of the respondents No. 4 to 25 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to issue the regular appointment order in favour of the applicant to the post of supervisor in the interest of justice.

(c) . That the Respondents may kindly be directed to create a regular post of supervisor in OBC category and appoint the applicant against that post and allow the applicant all benefits as granted to the respondents No. 4 to 25 with all consequential benefits including 18% interest.

(d) . That the strict disciplinary action may kindly be taken against the respondents who were involved in such type of malafide activities and the FIR should be registered against the culprits.”

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Case as set by Learned Counsel is that petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Worker in Anganwari Center Apradh, in Nagrota Bagwan Block, and she served there from 08.08.1991 to 27.11.2002

for 11 years, 3 months and 21 days. It is averred that while working as Anganwari Worker, the State Authorities issued an Advertisement on 22.10.2002 [Annexure A-1] for filling up 242 posts of Supervisor, including 48 posts meant for OBC-UR category, by Limited Direct Recruitment, from Anganwari Workers who were Matriculate and who possess 5 years of experience as such. 2(i). Pursuant to the issuance of Advertisement issued on 22.10.2002 [Annexure A-1], the petitioner applied as an OBC candidate and she had faced the written test on 19.01.2003 and the petitioner was declared qualified in written test on 07.05.2005 and was thereafter called for interview on 06.06.2005 [Annexure A-4]. It is averred that based on the marks obtained in written test and interview, the petitioner obtained a total of 62 marks {55 +7 marks} and out of the 242 advertised posts, the State Authorities recommended/appointed 238 incumbents as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis on 30.08.2005, which included the private respondents No. 4 to 25, who had undergone the same selection and some

of whom were junior in merit whereas, the petitioner was denied the appointed as Supervisor-ICDS, on regular basis, at the relevant time, on the pretext that issue, as to whether eligibility of Anganwari Workers with respect to age criteria of 45 years and requisite experience of 5 years was to be reckoned as on the date of the publication of advertisement (28.10.2002) or last date of receipt of applications within 30 days of publication of advertisement i.e. (27.11.2002) was pending and after adjudication of this issue in the case of, State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary (Social Justice & Empowerment and another vs Block Anganwadi Worker’s Union, Jhandutta, Distt Bilaspur and Anr, LPA No 205 of 2011, on 16.04.2012 [Annexure A-6], mandating that eligibility of Anganwari Worker for post of Supervisor -ICDS was to be reckoned on last date of receipt of applications and not the date of the issuance/ publication of said advertisement. 2(ii). It is averred that petitioner was appointed as Supervisor [ICDS] on contract basis on 09.05.2013 [Annexure A-8]. Feeling aggrieved, against her belated

appointment, petitioner obtained information under Right to Information Act on 09.12.2014 [Annexure A-10] and thereafter [Annexure A-11]. Since the grievance of petitioner remained unredressed, therefore, petitioner invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, in OA No 5705 of 2016, {now converted as CWPOA No 580 of 2020} with the prayer to give appointment to her as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis, from the date her counterparts-Anganwari Workers, who had faced/undergone the same selection and were placed junior in merit were appointed as Supervisor- ICDS on regular basis.

In this backdrop, a prayer was made to appoint the petitioner as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis from the date her counterparts, including the Respondents 4 to 25, who had undergone the same selection and were junior in merit were appointed as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis w.e.f. 30.08.2005 with all consequential benefits, by directing the State Authorities to create post of Supervisor-ICDS {meant for OBC category} or to quash and set-aside the selection and appointment of the private Respondents

4 to 25 with prayer that the action of the State Authorities in appointing the petitioner as Supervisor -ICDS on contract basis may be modified by granting her regular appointment with all the consequential benefits from due date as given to the counterparts- some of the private respondents. STAND OF STATE AUTHORITIES IN REPLY- AFFIDAVIT:

3. Pursuant to issuance of notice on 13.12.2016, State Authorities have filed the Reply-Affidavit dated 22.06.2017, of Director Women & Child Development Himachal Pradesh. 3(i). Reply-Affidavit indicates that advertisement was issued/published on 22.10.2002 [Annexure A-1] for filling up 242 posts of Supervisor-ICDS through Limited Direct Recruitment. It is admitted that total 3594 candidates were called for written test and result of the written test was declared on 07.05.2005, in which 1407 candidates were declared successful. It is averred that the petitioner, appeared vide Roll No 11700 (OBC) category) as OBC and she obtained 55 marks in written test held on 19.01.2003. Reply indicates that after passing the written test, the

petitioner was called for Interview, on 06.06.2005, in which, she was awarded 07 marks. Reply-Affidavit indicates that based on the performance in written test and Interview, petitioner got 62 marks whereas, cut-off marks for post of Supervisor-ICDS meant for OBC Category was 57.5 marks. 3(ii). Reply indicates that though 556 candidates Anganwari workers, who were ineligible for posts of Supervisor-ICDS, due to non fulfilment of the age criteria and experience had filed OA No 127 of 2023, in case of Anita Randhawa vs State, in which Learned Tribunal directed the State Authorities to allow them to appear in written test and interview and accordingly 216 such candidates were allowed to appear in written test on 07.05.2005 provisionally. It is averred that in terms of the communications exchanged between March to August 2010, the State Authorities granted the approval for filling up 150 more posts of Supervisor-ICDS on contract basis. 3(iii). Reply states that a counter petition i.e. CWP No 725 of 2005, was filed by Krishna vs State, in which, this Court restrained the State

Authorities not to appoint ineligible candidate and in compliance this, out of 1191 eligible candidates, 238 candidates were selected and offered appointment as Supervisor-ICDS on 30.08.2005 whereas though petitioner was eligible as she possessed experience of 11 years 3 months and 21 days as Anganwari Worker for the period from 08.08.1991 to 27.11.2002 but at the time of the scrutiny of documents and during process of recruitment, the case of petitioner was over-looked and she was inadvertently debarred for appointment as Supervisor in the year 2005 by misconstruing that she had not completed 5 years of experience as an Anganwari Worker on the date of advertisement and accordingly, the petitioner was given offer of appointment as Supervisor-ICDS on 09.05.2013, Annexure A-8.

In this backdrop, on one hand, the State Authorities have admitted the case of petitioner but on other hand, they have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. SEPARATE REPLY BY RESPONDENTS No. 17 to 19:

4. Private Respondents No 17 to 19 have filed

a separate reply, indicating that on the basis of Advertisement, written test and the Interview, they were selected as Supervisor way back in the year 2005 on regular basis.

NO REPLY BY OTHER PRIVATE RESPONDENTS:

5. Remaining Private Respondents (except the respondent no 16) were proceeded against exparte. Even, the respondent no 16, though represented, has chosen not to file any reply.

6. Heard, Mr. Anil Kumar God, Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hemant Kumar Verma, Learned State Counsel, Mr. Ravi Patial, Advocate for respondent No 16 and Mr. Rakesh Kumar Dogra, Advocate, for respondents No. 17 to 19.

ANALYSIS:

7. Taking into account the entirety of facts and circumstances and the material on record, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis, from the date her counterparts who were lower in merit were appointed as such in the month of August 2005, including some of

the private respondents No 4 to 25; by modifying the orders dated 09.05.2013, Annexure A-8, appointing the petitioner as Supervisor-ICDS on contract basis ; with all service benefits accruing therefrom, for the following reasons: ELIGIBILITY QUA EXPERIENCE FOR ADVERTISED POSTS OF SUPERVISOR-ICDS ESTABLISHED:

7(i). Pursuant to the issuance of Advertisement issued on 22.10.2002 [Annexure A-1], the petitioner who belongs to OBC category, was Matriculate and was below the age of 45 years and she possessed requisite 5 years of experience as on the date of issuance/publication of advertisement on 28.10.2002 and also on the last date for receipt of applications {30 days from date of publication of advertisement} as on 27.11.2002. Reply Affidavit indicate that the petitioner had rendered 11 years, 3 months and 21 days of service as Anganwari Worker for the period from 08.08.1991 to 27.11.2002 under the State Authorities. In this backdrop, once petitioner was fully eligible, was educationally qualified, was within permissible age-limit and she possessed more than 11 years 3 months and 21 days of experience as

Anganwari Worker. Even, Reply-Affidavit establishes that the State Authorities have misconstrued that she had not completed 5 years of experience as an Anganwari worker. Thus, in view of the material on record, the petitioner is held to be fully eligible to be considered for OBC posts, out of total 242 advertised posts of Supervisor-ICDS, (including 48 posts meant for OBC category) in regular pay scale of Rs 5000-8100 from the date her counterparts from same selection were appointed as Supervisor- ICDS on regular basis on 30.08.2005. MISCONSTUING EXPERIENCE AND OVERLOOKING DOCUMENTS ENTITLES PETITIONER FOR BENEFITS AT PAR WITH COUNTERPARTS AND LESS MERITORIOUS:

7(ii). Material on record establishes that the petitioner belonged to the OBC category and being eligible, she appeared in written test vide Roll No 11700 (OBC-category) on 19.01.2003 and obtained 55 marks. She appeared in Interview on 06.06.2005 and obtained 07 marks. Based on the performance in written test and interview, the petitioner secured 62 marks whereas the cut-off for OBC category was 57.5 marks. State Authorities have admitted in

Reply-Affidavit that during scrutiny of documents, the case of petitioner was inadvertently over-looked and she was inadvertently debarred for appointment as Supervisor in the year 2005 by misconstruing that she had not completed 5 years of experience as Anganwari Worker on the date of the issuance of advertisement, whereas, petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor on 09.05.2013 [Annexure A-8] on contract basis, after receipt of approval from the government for filling up 150 additional posts of Supervisor-ICDS.

Indisputably, record establishes that the State Authorities have admitted that they had over -looked the case of the petitioner and misconstrued her experience but State Authorities have appointed her counterparts-similarly placed incumbents and even those incumbents i.e. the Respondents No 16 to 19, who belonged to OBC category and were placed lower in merit {with 60.5, 60 marks, 61.5 and 59 marks} in the same selection for 48 posts OBC Category posts of Supervisor-ICDS, on regular basis, in regular pay scale on 30.08.2005 whereas

despite the fact that petitioner was placed higher in merit, amongst OBC candidates with 62 marks yet he was appointed as Supervisor ICDS on contract basis on 09.05.2013 [Annexure A-8].

In these circumstances, once counterparts including incumbents who were placed lower in merit {amongst OBC category posts} i.e. the private respondents no 16 to 19 were appointed on regular basis on 30.08.2005 whereas, the petitioner despite being higher in merit, was appointed as Supervisor -ICDS, on contract basis on 09.05.2013 ; therefore, the rights and legal entitlement of the petitioner vis-à-vis her counterparts and incumbents lower in merit needs to be rectified and restored by the State Authorities, by directing the Respondents to appoint the petitioner as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis w.e.f. 30.08.2005 or such nearer date, her counterparts, including the private respondents were appointed, when, the petitioner was fully eligible, was qualified and fulfilled the prescribed parameters and was higher in merit but the State Authorities had admittedly overlooked her case for appointment, at

relevant time. Moreover, denying regular appointment to the petitioner without any fault attributable to her establishes unreasonableness and arbitrariness in State action. Article 14 shall certainly come to the aid of the petitioner, when, the State Authorities have appointed her counterparts including incumbents who were placed lower in merit as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis on 30.08.2005, by overlooking the eligibility and the higher merit of the petitioner and thus the acts and omissions of the State Authorities cannot sustain. SUBSEQUENT APPOINTMENT ON CONTRACT NEEDS TO BE RECASTED ON REGULAR BASIS AT PAR WITH COUNTERPARTS AND JUNIORS:

7(iii). Denial or non-appointment of the petitioner at par with counterparts, as Supervisor-ICDS w.e.f. 30.08.2005 instead of appointing the petitioner as Supervision-ICDS on contract basis on 09.05.2013, Annexure A-8, needs to be remedied and rectified so that the rights and entitlement of the petitioner at par with her counterparts including Respondents 16 to 19, who were placed lower in merit is balanced on facts and as well as in law. Rights and

legal entitlement of petitioner needs to be resorted, so that the glaring discrimination and arbitrariness in State Action is put to a rest. Moreover, remedying the rights and entitlements of the petitioner is also necessary so as to ensure parity in service amongst counterparts of the petitioner and to ensure that “equals are not treated unequally”. Action of the State Authorities in appointing the petitioner as Supervisor on contract basis on 09.05.2013, amounts to carving out an artificial and hostile discrimination inter-se the petitioner vis-à-vis private respondents. This Court shall be failing in its Constitutional obligation envisaged in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, in case, the petitioner, despite being eligible, qualified and meritorious is made to work on a lower status, on lower post, in a lower pay scale vis-à-vis her counterparts including the private Respondents, when, the petitioner and private respondents both had undergone the same selection for the post of Supervisor-ICDS which as per the advertisement, Annexure A-1, was meant to be filled-up, on regular basis, in regular pay scale

of Rs 5000-Rs 8100.

Thus, the action of the State Authorities in appointing the petitioner as Supervisor ICDS on contract basis, when, selection process was initiated for regular appointment in the regular pay scale smacks of unfairness in State action. Moreover, once the counterparts and other incumbents who were lower in merit were appointed on posts of Supervisor -ICDS on regular basis, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for appointment as Supervisor on regular basis, so as to obviate discrimination and to ensure compliance of the very core ethos of the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In these circumstances, the claim set up by the petitioner is accordingly accepted, in the light of the aforesaid discussion. STATE OBJECTION ON DELAY AND LACHES MISPLACED:

Learned State Counsel has raised objection regarding delay and laches.

The above contention does not hold ground for the reasons; firstly, the State Authorities have indicated in Reply that it was due to inadvertence

of the State Authorities that though appointment was due to the petitioner as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis, but her case was left-out by mis- construing her experience at the relevant time; and secondly, once the State Authorities after realizing its inadvertence-mistake appointed the petitioner as Supervisor-ICDS on 09.05.2013 on contract basis then, the State Authorities were bound to invoke the principle of “restitution and restoration of rights and legal entitlements” by giving effect to it de-jure and de-facto. Even, the plea of delay and laches, cannot be permitted to defeat the substantive rights of petitioner at par with her counterparts, including incumbents lower in merit and the claim for pay fixation, and the right for higher amount of retiral benefits, including monthly pension hereinafter and thus, the action of the State amounts to curtailing her qualifying service for pension hereinafter, cannot sustain. In these circumstances, the admissibility of consequential benefits can be certainly restricted/ balanced between the petitioner vis-à-vis the State Authorities.

Accordingly, this Court hold the petitioner entitled for appointment on the post of Supervisor- ICDS, on regular basis, in the regular pay scale from the due date, from which her counterparts and private respondents who were lower in merit were appointed on 30.08.2005 or such nearer date but actual monetary benefits shall be restricted for a period of three years preceding the date of filing of the instant writ petition w.e.f 05.11.2013 with all consequential benefits thereafter.

BALANCING RELIEFS:

9. Needless to say, that this order has been passed, in order to maintain a balance between the rights of the petitioner vis-à-vis private respondents, who had been working as Supervisor on regular basis since August 2005 and for the inadvertent mistake of State Authorities these private respondents cannot be penalized. In aforesaid circumstances, without disturbing the appointment of the private respondents, this Court directs the State Authorities to restore the rights of the petitioner by appointing her as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis, in the regular

pay scale of Rs 5000-8100 as revised from time to time from the due date, from which her counterparts and the private respondents who were lower in merit were appointed on 30.08.2005 or such nearer date, against any of the unfilled post of the said selection (as out of 248 posts 242 were appointed or against any other vacant post or against existing post or in such other manner} as deemed fit and proper to meet the ends of 5ustice.

10. No other point was raised/argued.

DIRECTIONS:

11. In view of above discussion and for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed, in following terms:

(i) . State Authorities are directed to appoint the petitioner as Supervisor [ICDS], on regular basis, in the pay scale of Rs 5000-8100 w.e.f. 30.08.2005 or such like nearer date from which counterparts and the incumbents who were placed lower in merit than the petitioner were appointed as such with all consequential benefits ;

(ii) . State Authorities shall modify the orders dated 09.05.2013, Annexure A-8, in view of the directions in (i) above;

(ii) . Sequel to direction No (i) above, the petitioner is held entitled for appointment as Supervisor-ICDS on regular basis from due date notionally; but actual monetary benefits shall be restricted for three years preceding the date of filing of the writ petition on 05.11.2016 w.e.f. 05.11.2013 with all consequential benefits thereafter;

(iii) . The State Authorities shall comply with the directions contained herein and release admissible consequential benefits, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified/downloaded copy of this judgement;

(iv) . Parties to bear their respective costs.

In aforesaid terms, the instant petition is allowed and all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall accordingly stand disposed of.

(Ranjan Sharma)

Judge 31st December, 2025

[himani]