IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT GWALIOR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

<>

ON THE 9

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

WRIT PETITION No. 23802 of 2022

<>

RADHA RATHORE

<>

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Shri Yogesh Chaturvedi - learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri K.S. Tomar- learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State.

Shri Somnath Seth- learned counsel for respondent no.4.

ORDER

<>

1

<>

. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 12/09/2022 (Annexure-

P/1), whereby her appeal challenging the appointment of respondent no.4 on

the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika has been dismissed. The petitioner has

further prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant her additional marks

for her age and to appoint her on the post in question.

2

<>

. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that an

advertisement was issued on 11/08/2020 inviting applications for

appointment on the post of Aaganwadi Karyakarta/Aaganwadi

Sahayika/Mini Aaganwadi Sahayika for various Aaganwadi Centres in

District-Morena & Sheopur. For purposes of this case, we are concerned

with the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika for Ward No.13, Aaganwadi Centre

1 WP-23802-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5495

13/2, Housing Colony, Bhind.

3

<>

. The petitioner, respondent no.4 as also others applied for the

aforesaid post. After scrutiny of applications, the provisional select list was

published on 30/09/2020 (Annexure-P/5), whereby the following position

emerged:

Name of candidate (s) Marks allotted

Bhavana Shukla 77

Manoj (respondent no.4) 69

Sadhana 68

Seetu 67

Juli 64

Radha Rathore (petitioner) 63

4

<>

. It is thus, seen that one Bhavna Shukla was placed at serial no.1

while the petitioner was placed at serial no.6 in the provisional select list.

Being aggrieved by her non-selection, the petitioner submitted objection to

the selection of Smt. Bhawana Shukla stating that she is not the resident of

Ward No.13 and is, therefore, not eligible for appointment on the post. The

petitioner also claimed 10 marks towards her being unmarried lady of more

than 30 years of age. The objection was considered by the District Level

Grievance Redressal Committee. Her objection with regard to eligibility of

Smt. Bhavna Shukla was accepted and she was disqualified for appointment.

However, the petitioner was denied 10 marks towards her being unmarried

lady of more than 30 years of age, on the ground that as on 01/01/2020 she

had not completed 30 years of age. Accordingly, final select list was

published on 19/01/2022 (Annexure-P/7) and the respondent no.4, being at

serial no.1 of merit list, was appointed as Aaganwadi Sahayika on

2 WP-23802-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5495

01/02/2022 (Annexure- P/8).

5

<>

. Being aggrieved by the appointment of respondent no.4, the

petitioner filed an appeal before Collector, Bhind. She again claimed 10

marks towards her being unmarried lady of more than 30 years of age and

also raised objection to the eligibility of respondent no.4 on the ground that

she is not the resident of Ward No.13. Both her grounds were repelled by the

Collector. Based upon the BPL card, it was held that respondent no.4 is the

resident of the same ward. Regarding 10 marks, the Collector held that the

requisite age criteria is required to be satisfied as on 01/01/2020 and on this

date the petitioner had not completed 30 years of age and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled to additional 10 marks. The appeal was accordingly

dismissed. Challenging this order, the present petition has been filed.

6

<>

. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the date of

01/01/2020 is fixed only for purposes of determining the minimum and

maximum age of the candidate. However, the said date is not prescribed for

allocation of 10 bonus marks for being unmarried lady of 30 years of age.

He, thus, submitted that respondents erred in denying the benefit of 10 bonus

marks to the petitioner. He submitted that if 10 marks are allocated to the

petitioner, she would secure 73 marks and would march over all the other

candidates and would secure first position in the merit list and would be

entitled for appointment. In support of his submission, he placed reliance

upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Renu

<>

Vishwakarma Vs. Tulsi Vishwakarma & others

<>

<>

reported in 2019(3) M.P.L.J.

<>

51

<>

<>

and judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Renu Devi Vs.

<>

3 WP-23802-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5495

Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena & others

<>

<>

reported in 2016(4)

<>

M.P.L.J. 223

<>

.

7

<>

. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate as also learned

counsel for respondent no.4 supported the impugned order. As per their

submission, the age requirement for appointment on the post in question is

required to be seen as on 01/01/2020. It is their case that admittedly the

petitioner was not 30 years of age as on 01/01/2020 and, therefore, was not

eligible to get 10 bonus marks. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 also

argued that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has been

married on 03/05/2023 and is now residing in Ward No.35, Jamuna Nagar,

Bhind. As per his submission, since the petitioner is not residing in Ward

No.13, she is now not eligible for appointment on the post in question.

Learned counsel for the respondents, thus, prayed for dismissal of the

petitioner.

8

<>

. Considered the arguments and perused the record.

9

<>

. The facts which are not in dispute in this case are that the petitioner

as also respondent no.4 are the contestants for appointment on the post of

Aaganwadi Sahayika for Ward No.13, Aaganwadi Center No.13/2, Housing

Colony, Bhind. It is also not in dispute that if the petitioner satisfies that she

was more than 30 years of age and is unmarried, she would be entitled to 10

bonus marks as per the policy. It is further not in dispute that the petitioner's

date of birth is 12/07/1990 and as on 01/01/2020 she had not completed 30

years of age but on the date of submission application for appointment, she

had crossed 30 years of age.

4 WP-23802-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5495

10

<>

. The guidelines issued by the Women and Child Development

Department on 10/07/2003 have been placed as Annexure- P/2. The

applicability of these guidelines is not disputed by either of the parties.

Clause-ब of the circular deals with the appointment of Aaganwadi Sahayika.

Clause-ब-1 provides for minimum and maximum age of the candidate and

reads as under:-

“ब-1आंगनवाड4 सहाियका कD िनयुPS हेतु अह'ताय :-

आगनवाड4 हेतु चयिनत कD जाने वाली कD िन,मनानुसार

अिनवाय' अहताए होनी चा.हये-

(1) आवे.दका कD 8यूनतम उe 18 वष' एवं अिधकतम उe

45 वष' होना चा.हये।

आंगनवाड़4 सहाियका के िलये aजस केलेnडर वष' मc चयन

.कया जाना हो,उस केलेnडर वष' मc 1 जनवर4 को आवे.दका

कD उe 18 वष' से कम एवं 45 वष' से अिधक नह4ं होना

चा.हए।”

11

<>

. Thus, as per the aforesaid clause a candidate is required to be more

than 18 years and less than 45 years of age as on 1st January of the year in

which the selection is being made. Further, Clause-ब-2 provides for

allocation of marks under various heads which reads as under:-

“ब-2 आंगनवाड़4 सहाियका के िनयुPS के मापदnड (योiयता

सूची)

चयन सिमित gारा आंगनबाड़4 के8vवार योiयता सूची (मै-रट

िलKट) तैयार कD जायेगी। मै-रट सूची तैयार करने हेतु

अिधकतम 100 अंक िन,नानुसार .दये जायcगे -

1. अनु०जाित/अनु०जनजाित कD म.हला के िलए 10 अंक

2. गर4बी रेखा के नीचे रहने वाले प-रवार कD म.हला के िलए

10 अंक,

3. Pवधवा/प-र4यकता/तलाकशुदा/30 वष' से अिधक आयु कD

अPववा.हत म.हला के िलए 10 अंक

5 WP-23802-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5495

4. पांचवी मc 40 bदेश तक 30 अक एवं 40 bितशत से अिधक

अंक पर b4येक 2 bितशत पर 1 अंक

5. आठवी क(ा या उससे अिधक शै(aणक योiयता होने पर

10 अंक”

12

<>

. It is, thus, seen that the date of 1st January is prescribed only for

purposes of Clause-ब-1 (prescribing minimum and maximum age) while no

such date is prescribed for purposes of Clause-ब-2 (allocation of marks under

various heads). In other words, for allocation of marks there is no cut-off

date prescribed. Thus, for purposes of Clause-ब-2 for allocation of marks, the

last date for submission of application has to be taken as cut-off date.

Meaning thereby, for securing marks under various heads under Clause-ब-2,

the candidate should satisfy the requirement as on the date of submission of

application.

13

<>

. The Collector in his impugned order has held that since the

petitioner had not completed 30 years of age as on 01/01/2020, she would

not be entitled to 10 marks on account of her being unmarried lady of 30

years of age. However, the said interpretation of Clause- ब-2 given by the

Collector is not in consonance with the scheme. If this interpretation is

accepted, then even the widow/deserted/divorcee lady would also be given

marks only if she was so as on 1st of January of the year in which selection

is being made. As seen from clause-ब-1, the date of 1st January is fixed only

for purposes of minimum and maximum age of the candidate. Such

stipulation of 1st of January is not there in Clause ब-2. Thus, incorporating

1st of January as the cut-off date for purposes of Clause ब-2 is violating the

scheme of the circular.

6 WP-23802-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5495

14.

<>

It is settled in law the suitability and eligibility of a candidate is to

seen as on the last date for submission of candidature unless a specific date is

prescribed for the purpose. This has been so held by Apex Court in the case

of M.V. Nair (Dr) vs. Union of India

<>

reported in (1993)2 SCC 429:

<>

"9.

<>

........ It is well settled that suitability and eligibility

have to be considered with reference to the last date for

receiving the applications, unless, of course, the

notification calling for applications itself specifies such

a date."

15

<>

. Thus, since there is no cut-off date prescribed for applicability of

Clause ब-2, the eligibility of the candidate is to be seen as on the date of her

submitting the application. Admittedly on this date, the petitioner has crossed

the age of 30 years and, therefore, entitled to get 10 marks under Clause ब-

2(3) of the circular.

16

<>

. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 vehemently argued that

during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has got married and is not

residing in Ward No.13. It is his submission that residence in same ward is a

condition precedent for appointment on the post and, therefore, the petitioner

is not qualified for appointment on the post. The petitioner's counsel,

however, disputes this fact and submitted that the petitioner is residing in the

same ward. Even otherwise, such a submission of the learned counsel is not

acceptable. The eligibility of the candidate is required to be seen as on the

date of selection and the change in circumstances subsequently, during the

pendency of litigation, would not disqualify her. Admittedly, on the date of

selection in question, she was very much residing in Ward No.13 and was

eligible for the post.

7 WP-23802-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5495

17.

<>

The Division Bench judgment in the case of Renu Vishwakarma

<>

(supra)

<>

can be profitable referred on this issue. The Division Bench held

thus:

"13.

<>

We have bestowed our anxious consideration on

the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties. The

sole issue that has cropped up for consideration, as to

whether the subsequent cancellation of BPL certificate

of the present appellant after filing of her application for

appointment on the post of Anganwadi Sahayika, would

be relevant for consideration of her case in the

selection. Undisputedly, on the date of filing of the

application form the appellant was in possession of a

valid BPL certificate and, therefore, she was awarded

10 extra marks towards BPL category by the selection

committee. However, on the objection of the writ

petitioner, her 10 marks were deducted on the basis of

the order passed by the Tehsildar on the report of the

Patwari without giving any notice or affording an

opportunity of hearing to the husband of the petitioner.

The said order dated 4-4-2018 passed by Tehsildar,

Chitrangi, District Singrauli has been set aside by the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Chitrangi by order dated 10-8-

2018, which has been brought on record as Annexure-

A/2. The said order has attained finality, as the revision

filed against the said order has also been withdrawn by

the writ petitioner, vide order dated 17-1-2019 which is

evident from Annexure- A/5 filed along with I.A. No.

933/2019."

18

<>

. Considering the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 12/09/2022

(Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector, District- Bhind (M.P.) is found

unsustainable in law and is, accordingly, set-aside. It is held that the

petitioner is entitled to get 10 marks on account of her being unmarried lady

of 30 years of age as on the date of submission of her application.

Accordingly, she would get more marks than any other candidates and would

be entitled for appointment on the post in question.

8 WP-23802-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5495

(ASHISH SHROTI)

<>

JUDGE

<>

19

<>

. Consequently, order dated 01/02/2022 whereby the respondent

no.4 was appointed in question is also set-aside. The respondent authority is

directed to pass necessary order in favour of the petitioner for her

appointment on the post in question. Let needful be done within a period of

90 days' from the date of submission of the certified copy of this order.

20

<>

. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed off.

rahul

9 WP-23802-2022NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:5495