2026:JHHC:11779 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S) No. 488 of 2025 --------- Beauty Katiyar, aged about 28 years, Daughter of Mr. Sahdev Mahto and Late Sheela Devi, Resident of Village Ulatu, P.O. Makka and P.S. Burmu, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ....Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary, Department of Women, Child Development and Social Security, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.Ο. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. 2. The Director, Department of Social Welfare, Government of Jharkhand, having its office at Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi-834004, Jharkhand. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Ranchi 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Ranchi 5. The District Social Welfare Officer, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S.-Ranchi, Dist.-Ranchi. 6. The Block Development Officer, P.O.-Makka, P.S.-Burmu, Dist.- Ranchi. 7. The Child Development Project Officer, P.O.- Makka, P.S.- Burmu, District- Ranchi. 8. Sarita Kumari, Wife of Chottu Kumar Mahto, Resident of Kedli Gram, P.O. Makka, P.S.-Burmu, District- Ranchi. ....Respondent(s) --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --------- For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Shobha Rani, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Divyam, A.C. to S.C.-IV Mr. Sameer Saurabh, Advocate Ms. Isha Kaushik, Advocate --------- 06/Dated:-22.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for the following reliefs: “i. For quashing the order dated 05.12.2024 contained in Memo No.- 162 (Annexure-9) issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Burmu, Ranchi (Respondent No. 7) praying for compassionate appointment under the Rule 6 (2) of 2022 scheme for the post of Anganbari Sevika in Anganbari Centre in place of her deceased mother whereby and whereunder pursuant to representation dated 04.10.2024 made by the petitioner before the respondent authorities in the light of order dated 06.09.2024 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4942 of 2024 by this Hon'ble Court wherein Respondent No. 7 was directed to take a decision by passing a reasoned order, has been rejected by Respondent No.- 7. 2026:JHHC:11779 2 ii. For the direction upon the respondent No. 7 to considered the petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground and allow the petitioner to join as Aganbari Sevika in Anganbari Centre Kedli Gram, Panchayat P.O. Makka, P.S.-Burmu, District- Ranchi pursuant to the death of her mother in harness.” 3. After perusing the impugned order, it appears that the case of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she is not the daughter-in-law of the concerned village where the concerned Anganbari Centre is situated. 4. As a matter of fact, as per the notification dated 30.09.2022, a rule has been framed with regard to appointment/service condition of Sevika and Sahayika. From perusal of the said Rule in the notification dated 30.09.2022, it appears that in Clause 3(3), a condition has been stipulated wherein it has been mentioned that the applicant for the post of Sevika/Sahayika shall be daughter-in-law of the same village and no daughter shall be appointed as Anganbadi Sevika/Sahayika. However, an exception has been carved out wherein unmarried daughter can be appointed if she is physically handicapped but able to do the work for the said village. For brevity, Rule 3(3) is extracted hereinbelow: “3. .... .... (3) आवेᳰदका पोषक ᭃेᮢ के गाँव कᳱ बᱠ होनी चािहए। अिववािहत लड़ᳰकयᲂ का चयन इस पद के िलए नहᱭ ᳰकया जाएगा। अपवाद मᱶ वैसी अिववािहत लड़ᳰकयां चयिनत हो सकती है जो ᳰद᳞ांग हᲂ पर᭠तु कायᭅ करने मᱶ सᭃम हᲂ ” 5. The respondents in the impugned order taking this ground, has rejected the claim of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that this application is for compassionate appointment and learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this Court towards Rule 6(2) wherein the provision of 2026:JHHC:11779 3 compassionate appointment has been given, however, even Rule 6(2) does not stipulate that unmarried or married daughter can be appointed as Sevika/Sahayika. For brevity, Rule 6(2) is extracted hereinbelow: “6. .... .... (2) कायᭅ मᱶ रहते ᱟए मृ᭜यु होने कᳱ ि᭭थित मᱶ आंगनबाड़ी सेिवका/सहाियका कᳱ एक आि᮰ता का (जो चयन कᳱ अ᭠य अहᭅताएं पूणᭅ करती हो) चयन उᲦ आंगनवाड़ी कᱶᮤ के सेिवका/सहाियका के ᱨप मᱶ ᳰकया जाएगा।” 6. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on the notification dated 09.10.2024 wherein para 6 (2) (i) also deals with the rules for compassionate appointment. For brevity, the same is extracted hereinbelow: “6 (2) (i) - कायᭅ मᱶ रहते ᱟए आंगनबाड़ी सेिवका/सहाियका कᳱ एक आि᮰ता के चयन के मामले मᱶ ᳯरिᲦ होने के प᳟ात तीन माह के भीतर मृत सेिवका/सहाियका के आि᮰ता से ᮧा᳙ आवेदन के आलोक मᱶ ᮧ᳤गत आंगनबाड़ी के᭠ᮤ मᱶ आम सभा के ᳇ारा सेिवका / सहाियका का चयन ᳰकया जाएगा। इस ि᭭थित मᱶ िनयमावली कᳱ िनयम-3 (5) एंव 3 (6) अ᭠तगᭅत िनिहत शᱫᲂ को िशिथल रखा जायेगा। वᳶणत तीन माह कᳱ अविध के भीतर आि᮰ता का आवेदन ᮧा᳙ नहᱭ होने कᳱ ि᭭थित मᱶ आम सभा ᳇ारा सामा᭠य ᱨप से िनयमावली मᱶ वᳶणत ᮧावधानानुसार सेिवका/सहाियका का चयन ᳰकया जा सकेगा।” 7. From conjoint reading of Rule 3(3), 3(5), 3(6) and 6(2) of Jharkhand Anganbadi Sevika/Sahayika Selection and Honorarium (including other conditions) Rules, 2022 dated 30.09.2022 and also the Rule 6(2)(i) which is mentioned in para-3 of the notification of 09.10.2024, nowhere, it gives leverage to the daughter, either married/unmarried, to be appointed as Anganbadi Sevika. 8. As a matter of fact, the basic object of the Rules is that only the daughter-in-law shall be given appointment for the reason that she will continuously live in the said village and purposefully the daughter has been omitted from the Rule. Only in one case the leverage has been given to the daughter, who is 2026:JHHC:11779 4 unmarried and handicapped but able to do normal work. 9. In either of the Rules, which has been cited by the petitioner; nowhere it stipulates that either in a regular appointment or in a compassionate appointment, the daughter of the village shall be given appointment. It hardly matters that the Village Committee has appointed the daughter or any other matter. 10. However, at this stage, it is necessary to observe that if a daughter is married in the same village, then the restriction clause of daughter will not affect her appointment in view of the fact that the nature of relationship has been converted from unmarried daughter to daughter-in-law. 11. Having regard to the above, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Accordingly, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) APRIL 22, 2026 vikas/- uploaded AFR 20/05/2026