Allahabad High Court
Madhubala Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:64807
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 9364 of 2025
Madhubala Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar U.P. Govt. Lko. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Rajendra Prasad Mishra, Aditya Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. R.P. Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and learned state counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 12th June 2025 impliedly rejecting her candidature for promotion on post of Aanganbari worker in the centre concerned with direction being issued for consideration of petitioner's case for such appointment in future. Prayer has also been made for a direction to opposite parties to promote petitioner on the post of Aanganbari worker since 2018 and to pay her emoluments admissible as such.
3. It has been submitted that petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Aanganbari Sevika on 26th December 2000 in the centre concerned and has been continuously working as such since her appointment. It is submitted that at that time, the minimum educational qualification required for the said post was class 5th whereas for the post of Aanganbari worker it was class 10th. It is submitted that the petitioner possessed the qualification of high school at the time of her initial appointment. It is also submitted that during the course of her service, she subsequently appeared during the evening classes and qualified the intermediate examination in 2003. It is submitted that therefore petitioner was fully eligible and qualified for the post of Aanganbari worker. It is also submitted that as per government order dated 29th January 2021, the minimum qualification required for the post of Aanganbari worker subsequently was intermediate. It is submitted that as per government order dated 21st March 2023, 50% of the posts of Aanganbari worker are required to be recruited through promotion and remaining 50% by direct recruitment.
4. It is submitted that in view thereof, petitioner sought her promotion on the post of Aanganbari worker which was rejected by means of order dated 3rd January 2025 which was challenged in writ A No. 936 of 2025 and was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 14th May 2025 directing the opposite parties to consider the petitioner's case for promotion afresh. It is submitted that it is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed.
5. It is further submitted that earlier as well petitioner had filed writ A No. 10339 of 2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 11th November 2024 directing the District Programme Officer to decide her application for promotion which was also rejected on the ground that she had obtained her intermediate qualification without obtaining prior permission from the department. It is submitted that core ground of rejection of petitioner's candidature for promotion is that she obtained her qualification of intermediate during the course of her service as Aanganbari Sevika without obtaining prior permission from the authorities concerned. It is submitted that the aforesaid aspect has already been adjudicated upon by this court while deciding writ A No. 936 of 2025 and the impugned order has been passed again on the same premise but in effect the order impugned is virtually non-speaking and no reason whatsoever has been indicated as to why petitioner's case is required to be considered in future and not currently in terms of direction issued by this court.
6. Learned State counsel has placed reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties and reiterates the aspect that petitioner admitted in her representation that she passed the intermediate examination-2003 as a regular student after joining the post of Aanganbari worker but she has not specified under which government order she pursued studies nor did she obtain any departmental permission to study as a regular intermediate student. Reliance has been placed on the letter dated 17th February 2025 issued by the District Inspector of Schools with regard to aforesaid.
7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is thus evident that petitioner's candidature for promotion on the post of Anganwadi worker has been rejected primarily on the ground that she pursued and obtained her intermediate qualification without obtaining prior permission from the authorities concerned.
8. From a perusal of the judgment and order dated 14th May, 2025, rendered by this court while deciding writ A No. 936 of 2025, it is evident that the aforesaid factor has already been considered and rejected. Relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:-
" 9. It is further argued that as per the Government Order dated 21.03.2023, the petitioner is eligible for promotion since she passed Intermediate while in service. Her representation was rejected solely on the ground that she had not taken departmental permission to appear in the examination.
xxxx xxxxx xxxxx
13. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner is not a government servant, and hence the U.P Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 applicable to government servants do not apply to her. Neither the counter affidavit nor the submissions of the Standing Counsel cite any rule, regulation, or government order requiring an Anganwari Sevika to obtain prior permission for pursuing further education.
14. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner completed her Intermediate in the evening shift, which did not interfere with her official duties. It is also not the respondents' case that her work was affected. Therefore, the only reason for rejection that she passed Intermediate without departmental leave cannot be sustained in the absence of a rule mandating such permission. The case of the petitioner is that she applied for the post of Anganwari Karyakatri which is to be filled up by promotion.
15. A perusal of the government order dated 21.03.2023 shows that Clause 3(Ka)(III) of the said government order provides that if the 50% posts of Anganwari Karyakatri which are to be filled through promotion are not filled by promotion, no post shall be left vacant for the next selection; instead, they shall be filled through direct recruitment. Therefore, the petitioner?s candidature for promotion to the higher post of Anganwari Karyakatri cannot be rejected solely on the ground that she appeared for the intermediate examination without obtaining leave from the department, particularly when there is no provision requiring leave for the purpose of pursuing higher educational qualifications.
16. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order (Annexure No. 1) being unsustainable is hereby quashed."
9. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgment in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident that the ground taken by opposite parties for rejecting petitioner's representation is directly in conflict with finding recorded by this court earlier. Prima facie, the order impugned appears to be contemptuous in nature.
10. It is also a relevant factor that opportunity of advancement in career or education cannot be deprived to a person merely on the ground that it did not have sanction of the concerned authorities. The right available to a person for improvement either in status or educational qualification is an inherent fundamental right enshrined in the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore placing such a restriction as is being done by the state authorities is in violation of fundamental right of petitioner.
11. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances and the admission of opposite parties that petitioner has qualified intermediate examination and is therefore eligible for being promoted on the post of Anganwadi worker and in view of ground of rejection already being set aside by this court earlier, the reiteration thereof in the impugned order is clearly misconceived. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 12th June, 2025, is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari.
11. Ordinarily in such situations the discretion for deciding a representation of the candidate for promotion is left upon the executive authorities. However in the present case, it is evident that this is the third round of litigation and opposite parties are rejecting petitioner's candidature for promotion on the same grounds which have already been set aside by this court earlier. In view thereof, the opposite party No. 6 i.e. Jila Karyakram Adhikari/Prabhari Jila Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, District Gonda is directed to pass appropriate orders with regard to promotion of petitioner on the post of Anganwadi worker in case a promotional post is vacant. Appropriate orders with regard to aforesaid shall be passed expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority. In case there no vacant post of Anganwadi worker for promotion of petitioner at present, such orders shall be passed forthwith as soon as such vacancy arises.
12. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
(Manish Mathur,J.) October 16, 2025 prabhat