Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010023622025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/708/2025 MENOKA BEGUM D/O MONIAR ZAMAL, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAKHALKILLA, PO SIMLABARI, PS LAKHIPUR, DIST GOALPARA, ASSAM 783330 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GUWAHATI, ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE M G ROAD UJAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 01 3:THE JOINT DIRECTOR WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT M G ROAD UJAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER PO BALADMARI PS AND DIST GOALPARA ASSAM 783101 5:THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER LAKHIPUR ICDS PROJECT PO LAKHIPUR DIST GOALPARA Page No.# 2/13 ASSAM 78312 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M I HUSSAIN, M AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 24.06 .2026 Heard Mr. M.I. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate for the respondents. 2] This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authority for not issuing the appropriate orders in her favour for appointment of the post of Anganwadi Worker of Rakhalkilla Paschim Mini Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner is shown to be in the 1st position. According to the petitioner, in spite of having the eligibility and securing the highest marks amongst the candidate, she was not given the appointment on the ground that there was a complaint lodged by the President of Managing Committee of Anganwadi Centre, that her selection is in violation of the Rules. It is submitted that the advertisement contained a condition that the candidate cannot be a regular student of a school/college. The petitioner was pursuing her BA degree in Goalpara College at the time when the application was submitted and the matter was under consideration. On a complaint being received, the enquiries were made by the State respondents. A communication was received from the Goalpara College authorities stating that the petitioner had cleared all her semester examinations and appeared in the 6th Semester final examination in 2024 and she was a regular student of the college. On the basis of that Page No.# 3/13 communication, the appointment order of the petitioner was not issued. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed. 3] Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate appearing for the respondents disputes the contentions raised by the petitioner. He submits that on the basis of the complaint received from the President of Managing Committee of Anganwadi Centre that the petitioner was a regular student at the time of interview and therefore, her selection ought not to have been approved. He submits that the conditions appended to the advertisement is very specific and as per the advertisement there is a clear restriction on a regular student of a school/college will not be selected for the appointment to the post which are advertised. 4] The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that this particular condition is pursuant to a notification issued by the Government dated 25th January 2019 where, there is a specific provision for rejection of candidature on the grounds mentioned therein and one of the grounds for rejection is a regular student of a school/college. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Md. Firoz Mansuri vs. State of Bihar reported in (2026) SCC OnLine SC 88 to submit that where the essential qualifications are satisfied the candidate ought not to be rejected on the grounds of possessing other or higher qualifications. 6] The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions have referred to and relied on the judgment of Apex Court rendered in Y. Srinivasa Rao Vs. J. Veeraiah and Ors. reported in (1992) 3 SCC 63. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Apex Court rejected the contentions that granting Page No.# 4/13 preference to an uneducated person over an educated person would amount to placing a premium on ignorance, incompetence and consequently inefficiency. It is submitted that merely because the petitioner was a regular student pursuing her BA degree, which she has completed in the meantime that cannot be a ground for rejection if she has otherwise completed the essential qualifications. 7] Mr. R. Dhar, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in General Manager (HR) & anr. vs. K. Poovarasan reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1048. The learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate submits that the omission to declare the correct information regarding the fact that the petitioner had been pursuing BA degree as a regular student was not disclosed in the application form and thereby it was not possible for the authorities to verify and examine at the time of permitting the petitioner to appear for the selection process as to whether she was a regular student. It is only upon the complaint receipt from the President of the Managing Committee of Anganwadi Centre that the enquiry has been instituted the respondent authority came to know about it. He submits that in view of the notification dated 25th January, 2019 prescribing a specific ground for rejection of a candidate that the candidate should not be a regular student and the advertisement is also not under challenge. Once the notification is issued by the Government the respondent authorities are duty bound to comply with the guidelines specified under the notification and unless this Court interferes with such notification, the authorities are not at liberty to proceed with the selection process contrary to the conditions that prescribed in the notification. 8] In the rejoinder affidavit the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts and circumstances in the judgment before the Apex Court in K. Page No.# 5/13 Poovarasan (supra) relied upon by the respondent are not applicable and the conditions therein are different from the conditions applicable here. It is submitted that in the application form there was no provision for furnishing information as to whether the petitioner was pursuing higher qualification or as a regular student. Accordingly, it was not possible for the writ petitioner to furnish the relevant information. 9] The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 10] The petitioner completed her higher secondary education in the year 2021. Having successfully completed the education she had enrolled herself in BA course in the Goalpara College. In response to the advertisement which was issued on 28th of November 2023 the petitioner applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker for the Rakhalkilla Paschim Anganwadi Centre in the general category. The advertisement contained several conditions including the condition at Serial No.9 that the candidate shall not be a regular student of a school or college. 11] In the affidavit which is enclosed to the writ petition the comparative statement in respect of the Rakhalkilla Paschim Anganwadi Centre, the 7 number of candidates who were applied for the post including the writ petitioner is available. 12] It appears from perusal of the comparative statement that the education qualification of the candidates are mentioned, which reflects that HS passed insofar as the writ petitioner and another candidates are concerned. The marks obtained in the Higher Secondary examination are also reflected as well as the percentage. In the remarks column for the selection committee after the Page No.# 6/13 personality test of the petitioner, the remarks “V. Good” is seen insofar as the writ petitioner is concerned and the merit position in the comparative statement shows that the writ petitioner as 1st position and one Sumita Khatun as a 2nd position. Subsequently the final selection list of the Anganwadi Worker under the Lakhipur ICDS Project, Goalpara, which includes 11 numbers of Anganwadi Centres and the candidates who are chosen in respect of that 11 Anganwadi Centres was prepared. All the candidates are shown to be in the 1st position. Although no specific order has been issued but the final selection list indicates that the list is approved except Serial No.5 which is the name of the writ petitioner. The Government of Assam by notification dated 25th of January, 2019 laid down the eligibility criteria where at Clause (iv) it is provided that the candidate should have the qualification of H.S. passed from the “Assam Higher Secondary Education Council” or its equivalent examination from a recognized Board/Council of the Government of Assam. Insofar as the facts of the present writ petitioner is concerned there is no dispute in respect of this condition or eligibility criteria prescribed under the notification dated 25.01.2019. Save and accept that under the clause, “rejection of candidature on the following grounds is allowed” regular student of a school/college is one of the conditions prescribed for rejection of the candidates. From the analysis of the facts as pleaded by the parties before the Court, it is clear that the petitioner otherwise satisfies all the prescribed norms and has successfully cleared the higher secondary examination. During the interview, she was shortlisted as the candidate and placed at the first position. However, the appointment order was not issued on the basis of the complaint raised by the President of Managing Committee of Anganwadi Centre that she was a regular student at the time of the selection process and interview. Page No.# 7/13 13] According to the petitioner, since the essential qualification was higher secondary passed she had indicated the same in the form supplied and since there was no other provision or column enabling a candidate to indicate higher education achieve or pursue, there was no occasion for the petitioner to furnish other information that she is pursuing her BA degree. 14] It is equally important to note that the selection of the writ petitioner is not put to challenge by any candidate who had participated in the selection process on the ground that the Selection Committee selected the writ petitioner by taking into consideration that she has higher qualification. The complaint raised by the President of Managing Committee of Anganwadi Centre to the effect that the petitioner could not be appointed on account of her being a regular student, is also not founded on the ground that she was otherwise ineligible or lacked the requisite qualifications for appointment, save and except that on the date of the interview, the petitioner was a regular student of Goalpara College pursuing her BA degree. The petitioner completed her BA degree on 22.07.2024 and the selection process concluded by issuance of the final selection list on 15.07.2024. Therefore, it is clear that on the date when the selection was undertaken by the authorities, the petitioner was a regular student of Goalpara College. As on date, no other person has been appointed in the said post in view of the interim order passed by this Court at the time of issuance of notice by order dated 12.02.2025 and which interim order still subsists. It is equally important as pointed out by the State Counsel that the notification dated 25th of January, 2019 as also the conditions mentioned in the advertisement are not under challenge. 15] The application form, although not enclosed to the writ petition, during the course of the hearing on being permitted by the Court was placed the same Page No.# 8/13 before the Court, which is kept on the case record. The application form clearly reflects that the writ petitioner had completed her Higher Secondary. At Serial No. 7 of the application form provides for other qualifications, which has been left out blank. On a pointed query made by the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is submitted that the application form was submitted on 08.12.2023 and on that date she had only completed her Higher Secondary, although she was undergoing the BA course, she had not completed the degree that time. Therefore, there was no occasion for her to mention that she had obtained the BA degree at the time when the application form was filled up. The scrutiny of the application form, which is in vernacular, reflects that there is no provision for furnishing any specific information, whether the applicant is or is not a regular student of any institution, including a school/college. 16] The question therefore, is the interpretation of the clause “regular student of school/college”, which is a ground for rejection of the candidature. There is no explanation, which is discernible from the notification dated 25.01.2019 as to the rationale for rejection of candidates who are regular students. Since the application is for seeking for employment in the Anganwadi Centre, it naturally follows that regular student will not be able to perform her duties if appointed as an Anganwadi Worker/Helper. Therefore, perhaps the authorities considered it appropriate to prescribe such a condition for rejection, if on the date of appointment, the candidate was a regular student, the candidate will not be in a position to undertake the responsibilities of an Anganwadi Centre. 17] However, in the facts of the present case, on a date when the selection process was undertaken and the final list of shortlisted candidates was issued, the petitioner did not complete her graduation. By virtue of the interim order dated 12.02.2025 passed in this writ petition, no appointment orders were Page No.# 9/13 issued to fill up the post. There was no appeal or application seeking vacation or modification of the interim order and the interim order still subsists. As on date, the writ petitioner had already completed her graduation and she is not a regular student in any school/college as submitted by the petitioner. 18] As discussed above, the candidature of the writ petitioner has not been challenged by any other candidate who had submitted an application for selection to the post of Anganwadi Worker on the ground that the selection of the petitioner was vitiated by any illegality, irregularity, or other valid reason. The complaint is lodged by the President of the Managing Committee of Anganwadi Centre on the ground that the selection of the candidate is violative of the conditions mentioned in notification dated 25.01.2019 read with the conditions prescribed in the advertisement. 19] Coming to the judgment of the Apex Court pressed into service in Y. Srinivasa Rao vs. J. Veeraiah and Ors. reported in (1992) 3 SCC 63, the issue before the Apex Court was the selection and appointment to the post of dealer of a fair price shop in the State of Andhra Pradesh following an advertisement where one of the conditions was a preference to be given to unemployed educated youths, ladies, handicapped persons in case of equal qualifications amongst candidates. The appellant before the Apex Court was shortlisted as a candidate as he was a graduate and was also a fair price shop dealer for a long time. The appointment of the appellant was challenged by the respondent before the High Court by way of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and interfered with the appointment of the appellant. The said judgment and order were subsequently affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court and were thereafter carried in challenge before the Apex Court. Before the Apex Court it was urged that there was no guideline indicating Page No.# 10/13 the nature of interview which is to be the sole basis for making a choice for the settlement of fair price shop. It was urged before the Apex Court by the respondents that preference should be given to less educated persons as they are handicapped by reason of lack of education as compared to better qualified applicants. The Apex Court rejected the contention. The Apex Court held that the decision to prefer an uneducated person over an educated person amounts to allowing premium on ignorance, incompetence and consequently inefficiency. The Apex Court held that the only fault of the appellant was to have pursued his studies beyond Class X of the school and if he had discontinued his career as a student, he would have been running the shop today. This was found to be amounting to gross arbitrariness and therefore, illegal determination. It was held by the Apex Court that pursuing this line, the State will have to be going in search of more inefficient person and it is not known where the process will end. The Appeal preferred by the shortlisted candidate therefore, stood allowed. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and the order of the collector was restored. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: “6. The decision to prefer an uneducated person over an educated person amounts to allowing premium on ignorance, incompetence and consequently inefficiency. The only fault of the appellant is to have pursued his studies beyond 10th class of his school. If he had discontinued his career as a student even earlier, say after passing 7th or 8th class, he would have been running the shop today. This clearly amounts to gross arbitrariness and, therefore, illegal discrimination. Pursuing this line the State will have to be going in search of a more inefficient person and we do not know where this process would end. If we assume that since a better qualified person has got a better chance to succeed in life, an intelligent applicant who can run the shop efficiently should be rejected and a dim witted fellow should be selected. This is an absurd situation” 20] In Md. Firoz Mansuri (supra) the Apex Court rejected the contention of the appellants before the Court that Rule 6(1) of the Cadre Rules framed under the Page No.# 11/13 Pharmacy Act of 1948 prescribing minimum educational qualification as Diploma in Pharmacy and that such prescription cannot be construed as an essential qualification so as to exclude candidates possessing higher qualifications in the same discipline. It was held to be not repugnant to the provisions of the Act and the regulations which operate in the field of professional regulation. The Apex Court ultimately held that there is no absolute exclusion of a graduate or a post graduate degree holders. They remain eligible as they possess the essential qualification of Diploma in Pharmacy. This judgment was pressed into service by the writ petitioner not squarely applicable to the facts of the case as the rejection of the candidature of the writ petitioner or non-issuance of the appointment order to the petitioner is not on the ground that the writ petitioner possesses a higher qualification of a BA than the prescribed qualification of Higher Secondary. The rejection is on the ground that the petitioner was a regular student in Goalpara College at the time when the interview was undertaken. 21] Having noticed the judgments which are pressed into service, it is clear that the minimum eligibility criteria insofar as the education qualification is concerned is the Higher Secondary which is prescribed both under the notification dated 25th of January, 2019 as also the advertisement dated 28.11.2023. The ground for rejection in respect of the writ petitioner is concerned that she was a regular student of Goalpara College at the time when the interview was undertaken. The rejection is not on the ground that the petitioner possesses higher qualification than the required qualification as prescribed in the eligible qualification of Higher Secondary. The condition for rejection of a candidate for being a regular student under the notification dated 25.01.2019, if applied literally will mean that the State has discouraged Page No.# 12/13 candidates from pursuing higher education and more particularly in respect of girl students when right to education has been recognized as a fundamental right. Any attempt by any candidate to pursue education and enhance their qualification by securing higher qualification cannot be a ground for penalizing such efforts and rejecting their candidature. Such interpretations permitted will be antithetical to the avowed polices of the state as a model employer and when avenues of appointment in the Government are substantially rare. 22] As discussed above, the condition of being a regular student of a school/college which is prescribed as one of the ground for rejection does not provide for any further explanation as to why such a condition was found to be necessary by the State to be incorporated in the notification dated 25.01.2019 as well as the advertisement dated 28.11.2023. In the absence of any such explanation being published in the notification or in the affidavit being filed, it is the view of this Court that this condition will have to be restricted to mean that on a date when the appointment order is issued if the candidate is pursuing course as a regular student in any school/college and the same may be considered to be a ground for rejection as the candidate will not be able to render services as a full time Anganwadi Worker or Helper upon her selection and pursue her education as a regular student. Therefore, this condition will have to be directory and not mandatory. In the peculiar facts of the case, as on date no rejection order issued to the petitioner or no appointment order to any other candidate is also issued by virtue of the interim order obtained or passed by the Court on 12.02.2025 and the petitioner is also not a regular student as she has successfully completed her BA degree on 22.07.2024, this Court is of the view that the rejection or non-selection of petitioner on the ground that she was a regular student at the time of the interview cannot be accepted as this Page No.# 13/13 Court has held that this ground for rejection is Directory and not Mandatory. Under such circumstances, this Court allows the writ petition directing the respondent authorities to proceed for issuance of the appointment order of the writ petitioner by passing consequential orders. 23] Interim order dated 12.02.2025 stands merged. 24] In terms of the above direction this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to cost. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any are also dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant