Anganwari Helper Has Preferential Right For Promotion As Worker, Transferee Can't Claim Post: HP HC

A Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Justice Bipin C. Negi held that if a vacancy arises at an Anganwari Centre, the existing Anganwari Helper has a preferential right to be considered for promotion as Worker and such right cannot be defeated by a transfer on marriage grounds which is only recommendatory and not mandatory. Background Facts The Helper had been working continuously at Anganwari Centre in Village Kashpo for over 24 years since her appointment. Later the post of Anganwari Worker at the Centre fell vacant. The helper expected to be promoted under the Notification dated 19.06.2010. It mandates that the Helper working at that Centre must be given the first opportunity for appointment as Worker without any advertisement. However, before her claim could be considered, another woman who was already working as Anganwari Worker at a different Centre was transferred to the Kashpo Centre. This transfer was granted on the ground that other women had married in Village Kashpo. Therefore, she had requested for transfer to husband's place of residence. Aggrieved by this transfer, the helper approached the High Court by filing a writ petition. The Single Judge allowed her petition. It was held that she was appointed as Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Kashpo and had completed more than 24 years of service. Hence, she had a right to be considered for promotion when the post fell vacant. Dissatisfied with this judgment, the other woman (appellant) filed the Appeal before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. It was argued by the appellant that Rule 4 of the Notification dated 19.06.2010 provides that in case of marriage of an Anganwari Worker, if a vacancy exists at her husband's normal place of residence or place of marriage, she can be adjusted on her request made within one month of the date of arising of vacancy. The appellant had married in Village Kashpo and a vacancy had arisen at that Centre. On the other hand, it was argued by the helper that when the post of Anganwari Worker at the same Centre fell vacant, she had a right to be promoted to that post under Rule 5 of the Notification dated 19.06.2010. It mandates that the Anganwari Helper shall be given the first opportunity to be appointed as Worker if she fulfils the minimum prescribed educational qualification and no advertisement shall be required. Findings of the Court It was observed by the Division Bench that Rule 5 of the Notification dated 19.06.2010 provides that a right is created in favour of the Anganwari Helper working at a centre to be promoted as Anganwari Worker when a vacancy arises at that centre. Further the Rule 4 was examined which deals with transfer or adjustment on marriage ground. It was observed that this provision is not mandatory but only recommendatory in nature. It was further observed that the right of the helper to be considered for promotion to the post of Anganwari Worker was taken away by virtue of the transfer order. Such transfer could not be allowed to defeat the right of promotion that had already accrued in favour of the helper when the vacancy occurred. It was held by the court that the rule of consideration for promotion has greater weightage as compared to transfer request because the appellant was already occupying the post of Anganwari Worker. It was held that the helper had been serving as Anganwari Helper for the last 24 years. Therefore she had a legitimate expectation of being considered for promotion when the post of Worker fell vacant at the same centre. Such right could not have been taken away on account of a transfer order on a ground of marriage which is only recommendatory and not mandatory. It was held by the Division Bench that the helper was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Anganwari Worker. With the aforesaid observations, the order of the Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Division Bench. Case Name : Tara Devi v. State of HP & Others Case No. : LPA No. 837 of 2025 Counsel for the Appellant : Devender Kumar, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondents : Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate GeneralClick Here To Read/Download Order

Anganwari Helper Has Preferential Right For Promotion As Worker, Transferee Can't Claim Post: HP HC

Namdev Singh

Tags