Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16700 (HP)

Tripta Devi v. State of H. P.

2026-02-24

Jiya Lal Bhardwaj

body2026
JUDGMENT : Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, J. The petitioners, by way of present writ petition, have prayed that the respondents be directed to offer them appointment on the posts of Supervisor on regular basis, instead of contract basis and further consider them on regular cadre from the date when the respondents issued the regular appointment orders to 238 candidates with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioners were initially appointed as Anganwari Workers at different Anganwari Centres in the State of Himachal Pradesh by the respondents and they were discharging their duties with them. 3. On 22.10.2002, the respondents issued advertisement for filling-up the posts of Supervisors (ICDS) and the minimum eligibility criteria was that the Anganwari Workers, who have passed 10th standard from the recognized Board/Institute and have five years service along-with 11 months training as Bal Sevika, are eligible to apply for the post. The said advertisement was published in ‘Amar Ujala’ on 28.10.2002 and the last date for submission of the application form was within 30 days from the date of its issuance and 45 days for the candidates, who are residing in tribal areas i.e. Keylong, Udaipur, Kaza, Pangi, Pooh, Dodra-Kawar and Bharmour. The total number of posts were 242. Some of the persons were not called for the written test on the ground that they were not having the requisite qualifying service of five years as Anganwari Workers as on 28.10.2002 i.e. on the date of publication of the advertisement (Annexure P-1). 4. The Block Anganwari Worker Union had preferred the writ petition, which was registered as CWP(T) No.9192 of 2008, titled, Block Anganwari Workers’ Union and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and another and this Court vide judgment dated 24.12.2010 had disposed of the same with a direction to the respondents-State to declare the result of the test/interview for the post of Supervisor in the respondent Department held during 2003 and consider the cases of those candidates who have qualified in the said test/interview, in case they were having the requisite qualifying service as Anganwari Workers as on 19.01.2003 i.e. date of written test, within three months from the date of production of the copy of judgment. 5. 5. The respondent-State feeling aggrieved by the said directions issued by the learned Single Judge had preferred the Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which was registered as LPA No.205 of 2011, titled, State of H.P and another vs. Block Anganwari Workers Union and another. The Division Bench of this Court on 16.04.2012 had allowed the LPA to the extent that the respondent-State shall complete the process of selection permitting all those applicants for the posts of Anganwari Supervisor, who had acquired the qualification as on the last date for submission of applications i.e. 27.11.2002. The relevant para of the judgment is quoted hereunder: “8. In the judgment, dated 3.8.2011 in LPA No. 205 of 2011, this Court had, however, taken the view that the candidate must be qualified as on the date of advertisement inviting applications. That also is a case pertaining to the very same selection, as can be seen from the notification inviting applications. No cut-off date has been fixed for acquiring the qualification either in the Rules or in the notification inviting applications. Therefore, it is a case falling under the third category and hence the candidate need be qualified only by the last date for submission of the application. Since the judgment does not correctly reflect the settled position of the law and the same having omitted to take note of the binding judgments, referred to above, to the extent holding that the candidate must be qualified on the date of the publication of notification inviting applications, the judgment dated 3.8.2011 in LPA No. 205 of 2011 is one rendered per incuriam and hence not to be treated as binding precedent. Therefore, all those applicants for the posts of Anganwari Supervisor, in case they had acquired the qualification as on the last date of the submission of the applications shall be treated as fully qualified for applying to the post. The date of the selection is irrelevant, as we have already noted above; being an uncertain date, it may lead to malpractices even. To that extent, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.8.2011 in LPA No. 205 of 2011 is set aside and the appeal is partly allowed. The date of the selection is irrelevant, as we have already noted above; being an uncertain date, it may lead to malpractices even. To that extent, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 3.8.2011 in LPA No. 205 of 2011 is set aside and the appeal is partly allowed. There will be a direction to the appellants to complete the process of selection permitting all those applicants for the posts of Anganwari Supervisor, who had acquired the qualification as on the last date for submission of applications in the instant case on 27th November, 2002. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from today.” 6. After disposal of the LPA by this Court, the petitioners have been offered the appointment as Supervisor, but on contract basis. One of the office orders issued by respondent No.2 dated 09.05.2013 is placed on record as Annexure P-5. 7. The grievance of the petitioners as has been highlighted in the writ petition is that in respect of other candidates, who have been selected, were offered the appointment on regular basis and, therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to get all the benefits as granted to them from the date, when they have been appointed. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been offered appointment on the post of Supervisor in sequel to the directions given by this Court, emanating from the advertisement, which was issued on 22.10.2002 (Annexure P-1) and published in the newspaper on 28.10.2002. It is also not in dispute that as per directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA, the eligibility had to be seen as on 27.11.2002. It is also not in dispute that the other candidates who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure P-1) were offered appointment on regular basis. 9. The respondents-State while filing reply to the writ petition have admitted that other candidates who had applied in pursuance to advertisement (Annexure P-1) were offered appointment on regular basis, but plea which has been taken in the reply that the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Supervisor is on the basis of approval as conveyed by the State Government and further once the petitioners have accepted the offer of appointment on contract basis, they now cannot agitate the matter. It is further submitted in the reply that as per State Government policy, the appointments in all the Departments are being made on contract basis and further it is the prerogative of the State Government to make policy, keeping in view the overall financial health of the State. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and also gone through the record. 11. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been offered appointment in sequel to the directions issued by this Court when the LPA preferred by the State had been decided on 16.04.2012. The petitioners were litigating in the Court when they were not called for the interview for the reason that they had not five year service as Anganwari Workers, prescribed in the advertisement dated 22.10.2002, Annexure A-1. 12. As already noticed above, it is also not in dispute that the candidates who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.10.2002 had been offered the appointments on regular basis. Once the matter was pending adjudication before this Court and the petitioners were fighting the litigation and ultimately have been offered appointment after the decision of this Court on 16.04.2012, the action of the respondents-State to offer appointment to them on contract basis is not justified for the reason that the other candidates, who had also applied for the posts of Supervisor in sequel to the advertisement dated 22.10.2002, were offered appointments on regular basis. 13. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also submitted that since there is no fault on the part of the petitioners, they may be offered the appointment from the initial date when others have been offered appointments in the year 2005, deserves rejection for the simple reason that the Division Bench while deciding the LPA has not given such direction and therefore, the prayer made by the petitioners at this stage cannot be acceded to. The Division Bench had only given the direction to complete the process of selection permitting all those applicants for the posts of Anganwari Supervisor, who had acquired the qualification as on the last date for submission of applications in the instant case on 27th November, 2002. The Division Bench had only given the direction to complete the process of selection permitting all those applicants for the posts of Anganwari Supervisor, who had acquired the qualification as on the last date for submission of applications in the instant case on 27th November, 2002. Since the relief was not granted by the Division Bench while deciding the LPA from the date of offering the appointment to other candidates in the year 2005, the said relief cannot be granted to the petitioners in the instant petition. 14. The plea raised by the respondents-State in the reply that the petitioners have been offered appointment on contract basis is as per policy decision of the State Government and also keeping in view the financial health of the State Government is concerned, the same is rejected. 15. No doubt, the Courts cannot interfere with the policy decision taken by the Government, but in the present case, since the other persons, who have been appointed in terms of the advertisement dated 22.10.2002, on regular basis, the respondent-State cannot treat the petitioners differently, which clearly shows that the equals are being treated unequally. 16. So far as the contention that the petitioners have been offered appointment on contract basis and they have accepted the same is concerned, it is only after issuance of the appointment letter in favour of the petitioners that they had the cause of action to agitate the matter before this Court. Once the petitioners have approached this Court after the appointment given to them on contract basis, it cannot be said that the petitioners have belatedly challenged the action of the State Government. The action on the part of the respondents-State is arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory inasmuch as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. The respondents in their reply have admitted that the other persons who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.10.2002 have been offered appointment on regular basis. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appointment issued in favour of the petitioners on contract basis, is wrong. 18. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the respondents are directed to modify the orders of appointment issued in favour of the petitioners thereby making it on regular basis, instead of contract basis with all consequential benefits. 18. In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed and the respondents are directed to modify the orders of appointment issued in favour of the petitioners thereby making it on regular basis, instead of contract basis with all consequential benefits. Let the needful be done within a period of two months from today. 19. The writ petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.