REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6158         OF 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 13164 of 2006)

DIPITIMAYEE PARIDA       … APPELLANT

Versus

STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.             … RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant  is  before  us  aggrieved  by  and  dissatisfied  with  the

judgment and order dated 10.4.2006 passed by a Division bench of the

High  Court  of  Orissa  at  Cuttack  dismissing  an  appeal  against  the

judgment and order dated 30.3.2005 passed by a learned single judge of

the said Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 1952 of 2003 allowing the writ

application filed by respondent No. 5 herein.

3. The State of Orissa in terms of the Integrated Child Development

Scheme  of  the  Central  Government  issued  an  advertisement  for

appointment  of  Anganwadi  Workers.   A  check  list  laying  down

guidelines for selection of Anganwadi Workers was also issued.    The

Constitution  of  the  Committee  as  also  the  marks  to  be  allotted  on

different items were specified therein.  A Circular Letter dated 7.10.1998

was furthermore issued by the W.E.C.D. Department of Government of

Orissa  for  selection  of  Anganwadi  Workers  laying  down  minimum

educational qualifications and as also other criteria therefor; the relevant

clause whereof reads as under:

“8) Candidates who have been included in the panel  mentioned  above,  will  be  called  for  an interview and marks will be awarded to them in the following manner:

a) Percentage  of  marks  obtained  in  that Matriculation  examination  or  percentage of marks obtained in the written test  for non-matriculates as may be relevant.

b) 3 marks if the candidate is intermediate or equivalent or has higher qualification.  

c) 5 marks if the candidate belongs to S.C. and S.T. category.

d) 3 marks if she is married and additional 3 marks if she is a widow or a divorcee (i.e. where marriage has been dissolved by a court degree) provided she resides in that village.

e) Marks to be awarded for experience out of  a  maximum  of  5.   The  experience relevant  for  this  purpose  will  be

2

experiences  in  any area of  the duties  of Anganwadi  worker  acquired  in Government  employment  or  in employment  in  a  programme  under  a registered  voluntary organization  funded by  the  State/Central  Govt.  for  this purpose.

f) Marks  obtained  in  the  interview  which will be out of a maximum of 10 marks.

Note:-  Marks  awarded  to  candidate  in accordance  with  clause  (a)  to  (e)  shall  be notified prior to holding of interview.”

Rule  10  provides  for  composition  of  Selection  Committee.

Different Selection Committees were constituted for rural and urban areas

separately.   

4. Appellant  filed  an  application  for  recruitment  as  an  Anganwadi

Worker, the last date wherefor was 20.9.2000.  Admittedly, at that time,

she was not married.  She was married in 2001.  She secured 43% in HSC

Examination + 3 marks in Intermediate and 9 marks in viva voce, totaling

55 marks.  However, she was awarded 3 more marks on the ground that

she got married although as noticed hereinbefore she on the last specified

date for filing of the application was not married.   

Respondent No. 5 also filed an application for her recruitment as

Anganwadi Worker.  She secured 49.8% marks in HSC examination, + 3

3

marks in Intermediate, + 3 marks for marriage, + 2 marks for viva-voce

examination, thus, totaling 57.8% marks.  

5. Contending  that  the  Selection  Committee  had  no  jurisdiction  to

award 3 marks to appellant,  respondent filed a writ  petition before the

High Court of Orissa. The said writ  petition was allowed by a learned

single judge of the said Court by a judgment and order dated 30.3.2005,

opining:

“A  candidate  who  acquired  the  prescribed qualifications  or extra qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all.  Admittedly on the date of publication of the Notification  and the date  fixed  for  submission of  application  the  petitioner  was  not  married though  she  got  married  subsequently.   The authorities  awarded three marks in her favour. In  view  of  the  ratio  of  the  Supreme  Court judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), the petitioner is not entitled to the said three  marks  and  only  the  eligibility  and  the qualifications  possessed  by  the  opposite  party no. 5 on the date prescribed in the notification is to be taken into consideration.  In view of the clear position of law, I find that the authorities acted illegally and with material irregularity in awarding extra three marks to the opposite party no.  5.   If  the  aforesaid  three  marks  were deducted from 58% then the opposite party no. 5  would  secure  55%  marks  whereas  the petitioner  would  secure  57.8%  marks.   This aspect  was not  kept  in mind by the Collector. Therefore, I have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the Collector and direct that the petitioner be engaged as an Anganwadi Worker in  the  centre  in  question,  if  there  is  no  other impediment.”

4

As  indicated  hereinbefore,  on  an  intra  court  appeal  preferred

thereagainst  by the appellant,  the Division Bench passed the impugned

judgment dismissing the same.  

6. Mr. Anukul Chandra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of appellant  would submit that the question as to whether  a woman is

married or not although not wholly relevant, but being not an essential

qualification  for  appointment  as  an  Anganwadi  Worker,  the  learned

single judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court committed a

serious error in passing the impugned judgments.

7. Mr. Shibashish Misra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

contesting respondent, on the other  hand,  would support the impugned

judgment  contending  that  the  Selection  Committee  could  not  have

granted three marks in favour of the appellant on the premise that she was

married.  

8. The matter  relating to  recruitment of  Anganwadi  Workers  is  not

governed by any statute.  Recruitments are made pursuant to a Scheme

framed by the Central Government.  The State, therefore, while making

recruitments in such projects in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article

162  of  the  Constitution  of  India,  may  issue  such  guidelines  and/or

circulars as it may seem fit and proper.  

5

The said guidelines are ordinarily binding on all the functionaries

working  in  terms of  the  ‘scheme’  including  the  Selection  Committees

constituted for recruitment of Anganwadi worker.   

9. We  have  noticed  hereinbefore  that  a  Circular  Letter  had  been

issued by the State Government on 7.10.1998; the validity whereof is not

in question.   The manner in which the marks are to be distributed has

been laid down in clause 8 of the said circular letter.   

Sub-Clause (d) of Clause 8 of the said Circular postulates that three

marks  are  to  be  granted  if  the  candidate  is  a  married  woman  and

additional three marks are to be granted if she is a widow or a divorcee.   

As the Scheme deals with the welfare of the children, it is expected

that a married woman would be able to deal with them more efficiently;

widows  and  divorcees  are  granted  additional  marks  in  order  to  give

incentive to them to work with the children.   

Ten marks had been fixed for viva-voce test.   The marks which

have to be awarded in terms of clause 8 (a) to (e) were to be notified prior

to holding of interview.  

The reason behind the same appears to be invoking the principle of

transparency in the Selection Process.  Thus, as in terms of clause 8(a) to

(e),  appellant  got  55% marks;  the Selection Committee could not  have

6

awarded her three additional marks on the premise that she was married.

Even before the interview such marks could not have been awarded as the

authorities were not expected to be aware that she was married after filing

of the application for recruitment.  It may or may not be for appellant to

bring the said subsequent event to the notice of the competent authority

so as to enable them to consider that although on the last date for filing of

the application she was not married but was married subsequently. We

say so because in terms of the rules it was for the competent Committee

to award marks in terms of clause 8(a) to (e) of the said Circular Letter

dated 7.10.1998.  The Selection Committee could not have done so as it

was merely authorized to hold the viva-voce test wherefor only 10 marks

were specified.  

10. We had adverted to this aspect of the matter so as to enable us to

consider the submissions made by Mr. Pradhan that the criterion of one’s

marital status was not relevant.  It is one thing to say that the criteria fixed

by the State for the purpose of recruitment of Anganwadi Workers are

illegal or ultra vires but it is another thing to say that although they are

valid, in their application some relaxation could be granted.  When marks

are fixed specifying the criteria in the rule, the same should be strictly

followed.  The Selection Committee was not conferred with any power to

grant  relaxation.   Stages  for  grant  of  marks  having  been  fixed;  one

Committee could not usurp the jurisdiction of the other.  If the contention

7

of  respondents  is  correct,  then,  for  all  intent  and  purport,  the  marks

awarded by the Interviewing Committee to the appellant would be 12 out

of 10, which was impermissible.   

11. This Court in Pramod Kumar v. U.P. Secondary Education Services

Commission & ors. [2008 (4) SCALE 580] held:

“…Appellant,  however,  has  filed  a  writ application for issuance of or in the nature of a writ of mandamus.  He, therefore, must establish existence  of  a  legal  right  in  himself  and  a corresponding legal duty in the State.   If he did not possess the requisite qualification to hold a post,  he  could  not  have  any  legal  right  to continue.    It  was,  therefore,  immaterial  as  to why  and  when  the  said  proceeding  had  been initiated against him.”    

12. Even otherwise,  ordinarily the qualification or extra-qualification

laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for

filing of the application.  This has been so held in  Rekha Chaturvedi  v.

University of Rajasthan & ors. [1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168], stating:

“The contention that the required qualifications of  the  candidates  should  be  examined  with reference to the date of selection and not with reference  to  the  last  date  for  making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the  absence  of  knowledge  of  such  date  the candidates  who  apply  for  the  posts  would  be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet acquire

8

the  qualifications.  Unless  the  advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it  would not  be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even  to  make  applications  for  the  posts.  The uncertainty  of  the  date  may  also  lead  to  a contrary  consequence,  viz.,  even  those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti  and are  likely  to  acquire  them at  an uncertain  future  date,  may apply for  the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still  worse consequence  may follow,  in  that  it may leave  open a scope for  malpractices.  The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated  in  the  advertisement/notification inviting applications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when  the  Selection  Committee  in  the  present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications  as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of  preferring  applications,  it  acted  with  patent illegality,  and  on  this  ground  itself  the selections in question arc liable to be quashed.”

13. Yet again, in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander Shekhar &

Anr. [1997 (4) SCC 18], this Court held:

“One reason behind this proposition is that if it were  known  that  persons  who  obtained  the qualifications  after  the  prescribed  date  but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons  could  also  have  applied.  Just  because

9

some of the person had applied notwithstanding that  they  had  not  acquired  the  prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis.”

{See also Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & ors. [(2007) 4

SCC 54 Para 20], Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Kaila Kumar

Paliwal and Anr.[(2007) 10 SCC 260 Para 20 and 21]}

14. In this view of the matter, we do not find any legal infirmity in the

impugned judgment.  The appeal is dismissed accordingly.  There shall,

however, be no order as to costs.  

……………….…..………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

..………………..……………J. [Cyriac Joseph]

New Delhi; OCTOBER 20, 2008

10