IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ******** PRESENT: HON’BLE JUSTICE RAI CHATTOPADHYAY WPA/301/2024 (IA NO: CAN/1/2024) Smt. Sunita Xess and Others ... Petitioners Versus The Lieutenant Governor and Others ... Respondents With WPA/314/2024 Smt. Dhan Laxmi and others ... Petitioners Versus The Lieutenant Governor and Others ... Respondents For the petitioners : Mrs. Anjili Nag, Sr. Adv. Mr. Adarsh Ilango Mr. Deb Kumar Bawali For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Heard on : 26.11.2025 Judgment on : 01.12.2025 RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J. 1. A vacancy notification dated March 6, 2024, published by the respondent authority, inviting applications to fill up the posts of ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers, is under challenge in the two writ 2 petitions as mentioned above. Hence, the subject matter being similar, those are heard together and disposed of by dint of this common judgment. 2. The writ petitioners are the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers who have been engaged as so, on various dates in the year 2022, under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme [I.C.D.S. Scheme] and continuously working in the said capacity, till date. The petitioners have claimed that so far they have maintained unblemished service record and not ever been subjected to any complaint whatsoever. The petitioners say that according to their indigent financial status, they are completely dependent on the honorarium received by them. An advertisement published on March 6, 2024, for filling up posts of ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers, is said to have affected adversely their valuable right to life, in so far as by publishing the same, the respondent authority has intended to disengage them and employ a fresh batch of ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers on similar contractual and temporary terms. 3. According to Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate for the writ petitioners, the petitioners have been inducted in the service, through a valid and proper process of recruitment. That the petitioners have been continuously discharging duties to the fullest satisfaction of the respondent/employer. That, by 3 publication of the advertisement as mentioned above the respondent authority has intended to engage contractual employees afresh in the said posts of ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers, by terminating the service of the existing contractual employees, which is not permissible in the eye of law. Hence, that any process of recruitment as has been initiated vide publication of the vacancy notification as above, is liable to be turned down being not in conformity with the law. She says that on the alleged unsustainable plea of the writ petitioners being overaged, the respondent authority has even discarded their aspirations to appear for the examination, in terms of the said notification. 4. Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate has referred to the National Food Security Act, 2013, to submit that the I.C.D.S. Scheme, under which the writ petitioners are engaged has been formulated under provisions of the said Act. She has further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs District Development Officer Dahod & Others reported at AIR 2022 SC 2119, by dint of which the rights of the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers as to the gratuity, has been crystallized at a time after they reach the age of superannuation. 4 5. The Court has held in the said judgment of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya (supra), that the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers are liable to be terminated from service on proof of misconduct committed in discharge of duties or on attaining the age of superannuation. Hence, the Court has further found that the in-built transparent procedure has been prescribed, laying down the mode of selection along with service conditions and the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers shall retire at the age of superannuation. 6. Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate has further argued with reference to the judgment in Md. Abdul Kadir and Another vs Director General of Police Assam and Others reported at 2009(2) SCC (L&S) 227, that process of termination and re- appointment should be avoided and according to the Court’s verdict the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers should be continued as long as the Scheme continues. The Court has held that any artificial break by annual termination followed by fresh appointment, is undesirable and beyond the purpose of the Scheme. 7. Mrs. Anjili Nag, learned senior advocate has referred to the judgment of Division Bench of Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court in Jayshree Vishwanath Bhale and Others vs The State of Maharashtra and Others reported at 5 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1760 in support of her argument that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another employee of similar contractual status. 8. For the reasons as above, the writ petitioners have prayed for setting aside of the vacancy notification dated March 6, 2024. 9. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate has represented the respondent authority. He has referred to the Scheme Guidelines of Mission Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0 [in short “Scheme 2.0”], which has come into effect from January 13, 2021. He submits that according to the said guidelines as promulgated vide Scheme 2.0, there are specific criteria in terms of qualification and benefits of the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers. According to him, the respondent authority after coming into force the said Scheme 2.0, is duty bound to implement the provisions thereof, in appointing and regulating service conditions of the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers. He says that the writ petitioners do not fulfil the minimum eligibility criteria as prescribed vide the Scheme 2.0. Also, that they have not been appointed in a regular recruitment procedure, but on leave vacancy only. Therefore, according to the said respondents, neither in terms of the Scheme 2.0 nor otherwise, the writ petitioners are entitled to continue in the posts as the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers. He has submitted further that the 6 writ petitioners have crossed the threshold age limit as per the said Scheme 2.0, for being inducted as the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers. Hence, that in all respect the writ petitioners have turned ineligible for the said posts, Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned advocate has submitted. 10. He has further submitted that the respondent authority is required to appoint new incumbents possessing all eligibility criteria as provided in the said new Scheme 2.0. Therefore, a recruitment process has been initiated by publication of the vacancy notification dated March 6, 2024. The writ petitioners therefore cannot challenge the same validly, as that would amount to raising objections as to the terms of the said new Scheme, without challenging the same, in this writ petition. According to the said respondents the writ petitioners are not legally authorized to do the same. Hence, it is their submission that the writ petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed. 11. All the writ petitioners are the appointees in the year 2022, that is after promulgation of the said Scheme 2.0, which has come into effect on January 13, 2021. They have been appointed even without possessing the requisite qualification, envisaged under the said Scheme 2.0. Since the date of appointment, the writ petitioners have been serving continuously and maintaining an 7 unblemished service record. Their service has also been extended, from time to time. Record has revealed that most of the writ petitioners have been appointed against the existing vacant posts and that all of them have been have been periodically extended in service. 12. Suddenly, in the year 2024, the respondent authority has published vacancy notification for filling up all the posts, irrespective of the same being vacant or not, in terms of the Scheme 2.0. The question is whether such action of the respondent authority tantamount to gross arbitrariness and irrationality rendering the same to be illegal and not maintainable in the eye of law, as in effect it amounts to termination of service of the present petitioners. 13. Pertinent is to note that at the time of induction of the writ petitioners in service in 2022, the respondent has not considered it necessary to duly follow the guidelines provided in Scheme 2.0. which was already in place at the said point of time. Suddenly in 2024, they have awakened from a deep slumber to discover and realise, that in the process of appointing and regulating service conditions of the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers, they are duty bound to follow the said Scheme 2.0. However, there is no explanation as to why at the time of appointment of 8 the writ petitioners the said guidelines have not been followed, in spite of the same being promulgated much ago. 14. The law is now well settled that the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers, once appointed should continue in service, till they reach the age of superannuation, unless before that is subjected to appropriate action or termination due to any misconduct. The respondents have very comfortably given an absolute go bye to the law so settled by the Court in case of ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers. 15. Not only the same, it appears that the concerned respondents are absolutely unaware about the other settled principle of law, that in replacement of a temporary or contractual employee, another employee of the same status cannot be inducted in the same post, as it is prohibited under the law. Finally, by declaring the posts of the writ petitioners as vacant, the respondent authority has committed gross violation of the law settled in respect of the ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers, that their services are terminable with their attaining the age of superannuation and not before, unless any misconduct is there committed in discharge of duties. The respondent authority, once having appointed the writ petitioners, finding them eligible and suitable and after extending their service from time to time, would be precluded from applying the provisions under the 9 Scheme 2.0 in case of the present petitioners and would not be authorized to terminate the same without any justifiable ground, on any pretext whatsoever. 16. Of course, the above decision of the Court, with respect to the present writ petitioners would not restrict the respondent authority to take steps for filling up the vacancies which arise in accordance with law, as per the terms specified in the said Scheme 2.0. However, the respondents would not be authorized to take such steps amounting to termination of service of the writ petitioners before they attain their age of superannuation. The respondent authority would not be entitled to give effect otherwise to an act, which it is not authorized under the law to do. The government bodies are subject to the law and cannot act arbitrarily or exceed the limits set by the law. Therefore, taking such steps by the respondent authority to virtually terminate the services of the writ petitioners is arbitrary, irrational and illegal. The same is liable to be set aside. 17. For all the reasons as discussed above, the instant writ petitions should succeed. Hence, writ petitions No. WPA/301/2024 and WPA/314/2024 are allowed with the following directions: a) The vacancy notification dated March 6, 2024 is set aside; b) The writ petitioners who have been appointed and extended in service from time to time and are still working, 10 are eligible to be engaged as ‘Anganwari’ workers/helpers till the date of their superannuation; c) The respondent authority is however, competent and authorized to take necessary steps in accordance with the Scheme 2.0, for filling up of the existing vacant posts, if any as on date, excepting those which are presently occupied. 18. The writ petitions No. WPA/301/2024 and WPA/314/2024 and the connected application, if any, are allowed and disposed of with the directions as above. 19. No order as to costs. 20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be granted to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities. (RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, J.)