'Jethani' Not Part Of 'Family' Unless Brothers Share Common House & Kitchen: Allahabad High Court On Anganbari Appointment Bar

Briefly put, the petitioner argued that her jethani (sister-in-law) lives in a separate house with a separate house number and hence, she does not fall within the definition of her husband's family, even though she may belong to the family of her father-in-law.

Her counsel also pointed out the relevant family register document, which showed that her jethani actually lived separately.

For context, the argument was made with regard to the bar created under the Government Order dated May 21, 2023 under Clause 12 (iv) which provides that two ladies of the same family will not be appointed as Anganbari Worker and Anganbari Assistant at the same centre.

Furthermore, the counsel for the petitioner referred to the definition clause of family provided for government employee in the medical department for the purpose of medical assistance to dependents of the family in government department as well as the definition of family given under Order XXXII-A, Rule 6 to submit that by no stretch of imagination the sister-in-law (jethani) can be taken to be falling within the definition of family for the purposes of selection and appointment on the post of Anganbari Worker.

Against this backdrop, at the outset, the Court found the order impugned unsustainable on the threshold ground that it was passed without affording any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, despite carrying adverse civil consequences.

Furthermore, turning to Clause 12(iv) of the GO, the Court examined the meaning of 'same family' to hold thus:

"…daughter-in-law (jethani) would not become member of the family and daughter-in-law (jethani) can be considered to be a member of family provided both brothers are living together having common kitchen and house".

Thus, the Court concluded that it cannot be said that both sister-in-law (jethani) and petitioner were women of the same family. Hence, the order impugned was rendered unsustainable on both grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and also on merits.

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the order impugned was quashed. The District Programme Officer was directed to reinstate the petitioner as an Anganbari Worker to discharge her duties.