Appointment Made in Violation of Statutory Rules is Void Ab Initio: Rajasthan High Court Refuses Relief to Former Anganwadi Worker Turned Forest Guard

“Eligibility Was Reserved for In-Service Anganwadi Workers—Experience Alone Is Not Enough”, In a significant ruling Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, through Hon’ble Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati, upheld the cancellation of appointment of Smt. Sharda Ladna to the post of Supervisor (Women) under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme.

The Court emphatically held that the recruitment under Advertisement No.03/2024 was strictly reserved for in-service Anganwadi Workers and that merely having past experience was not sufficient. The Court observed:

“The appointment of the petitioner was clearly in the teeth of statutory provisions… and was void ab initio.”

Relying on binding precedents and statutory interpretation, the Court dismissed the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, terming it devoid of merit.

The petitioner, Smt. Sharda Ladna, a Scheduled Caste woman and widow, had worked as an Anganwadi Worker for over 17 years before joining as a Forest Guard in January 2024.

She applied for the post of Supervisor (Women) under Advertisement No.03/2024 dated 13.02.2024, which required: “10 years' experience as Anganwadi Worker in ICDS.”

After successfully clearing the written exam and undergoing document verification, she was issued an appointment order dated 28.03.2025 and joined duty on 02.04.2025. However, her appointment was cancelled on 24.04.2025, on the ground that she was not in active service as an Anganwadi Worker on the date of application.

Challenging this cancellation, she argued that the eligibility criteria were altered after the process began, and that her long service as an Anganwadi Worker entitled her to the post.

The key legal issue was whether a candidate who had previously served as an Anganwadi Worker, but was no longer in service on the relevant date, could be considered eligible under Advertisement No.03/2024, which was issued exclusively for in-service candidates.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim and clarified the position of law by stating:

“The usage of the term ‘Anganwadi Worker’ in Advertisement No.03/2024 clearly indicated it was meant for women currently serving as such, and not merely those with past experience.”

The Court further observed that:m“The contention that the eligibility criteria were changed after commencement of selection process is without any force.”

Advertisement Was Clear and Unambiguous – In-Service Status Was Mandatory

The High Court carefully contrasted Advertisement No.03/2024 (meant for in-service Anganwadi Workers) with Advertisement No.05/2024 (open to all women candidates) and concluded that:

“It is not a case of ambiguity or administrative manipulation. Two separate recruitment streams were created as per law—one for Anganwadi Workers and another for the open market.”

The petitioner had applied under Advertisement No.03/2024 despite being employed as a Forest Guard and not an in-service Anganwadi Worker at that time. Therefore, her appointment was declared legally untenable.

Recruitment Must Follow Statutory Framework – No Equity in Contravention of Law

The Court reaffirmed the binding nature of Rule 23 and Schedule-II of the Rajasthan Integrated Child Development (State and Subordinate) Service Rules, 1998, which mandates:

“50% of the Supervisor posts are to be filled through in-service Anganwadi Workers via written examination.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Odisha v. Sulekh Chandra Pradhan, the Court reiterated:

“Appointments made in contravention of the statutory provisions are void ab initio.”

It further emphasized that:

“The petitioner with open eyes applied under the wrong advertisement. It is not a case of misleading terms or evolving criteria. Her disqualification stems from her own ineligibility.”

Past Experience Alone Cannot Override Statutory Requirement of Current Service

Rejecting the petitioner’s reliance on K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512, the Court held that there was no mid-way alteration in eligibility norms, and the law was clear from the beginning.

The appointment was invalid from inception, and therefore, no right or benefit accrued, despite her short period of service post-appointment.

“Thus, the appointment of the petitioner… was void ab initio and the respondents were justified in cancelling the same.” [Para 13]

The High Court, in a well-reasoned and precedent-backed ruling, dismissed the petition while restating an important principle in service law—“When the statute requires something to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all.”

The decision sets a clear precedent for recruitment authorities and candidates alike: eligibility conditions rooted in statutory rules cannot be diluted by experience, sympathy, or inadvertent administrative oversight.

Date of Decision: 04 August 2025