“The Shoe Is on the Other Foot”: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Post-Selection Eligibility Objection, Directs Appointment to Asha Sahyogini Post
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur held that a candidate’s eligibility must be determined at the commencement of the selection process and not after the candidate has been declared successful. It observed that the petitioner’s selection pursuant to a Gram Sabha resolution was made in accordance with a valid advertisement and procedural guidelines. The Bench recorded that the issuance of a subsequent advertisement without cancelling the earlier one, and without notifying the concerned Gram Panchayat, was procedurally irregular and unjustified.
The Single Bench of Justice Arun Monga concluded that the petitioner had not concealed any material fact and had participated in the selection process transparently. The Court further observed that no adverse findings regarding merit or eligibility had been made at the relevant time. Official records, including the Gram Sabha resolution and corresponding communications confirming selection, were part of the undisputed record. The matter involved a vacancy that remained unfilled due to the initiation of a second selection process which was stayed during the pendency of the proceedings.
The petitioner, a resident of Village Rajva in Gram Panchayat Biliawas, District Rajsamand, responded to an advertisement dated 03.01.2018 issued pursuant to a government communication dated 02.01.2018 regarding appointments at Anganwadi Centres. The advertisement specified that selection for the post of Asha Sahyogini at Anganwadi Centre Mandela would be conducted through the Gram Sabha.
In accordance with the advertisement, a Gram Sabha meeting was held on 15.02.2018, where item No. 33 on the agenda concerned the post in question. The Gram Sabha passed a resolution selecting the petitioner. This selection was communicated by the Sarpanch to the Child Development Project Officer. No objections were raised at the time regarding the petitioner’s eligibility.
On 04.07.2018, a fresh advertisement was issued for the same post without formally cancelling the earlier one or notifying the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner contended that the re-advertisement was unwarranted and that her selection had already been confirmed in accordance with prescribed procedure. She further submitted that the Gram Panchayat had reiterated her selection in its communication dated 23.07.2018 and had not received any contrary directions from the appointing authority.
The respondents did not file a reply to the petition, despite being granted multiple opportunities. By an order dated 15.05.2024, the Court recorded that the right to file reply stood foreclosed. It stated: “Despite this Court vide an earlier order dated 29.01.2024 having been given the last opportunity with the caution that in case reply is not filed, cost of Rs.25,000/- shall be imposed, needful has not been done. In view thereof, right of respondents to file their reply is foreclosed.”
An interim order dated 04.10.2018 had stayed the second selection process. The order read: “In the meanwhile and till further orders, further proceedings pursuant to the advertisement dated 4.7.2018 (Annex.5) for the post of Asharthi Sayogini for Gram Panchayat Bilyawas, Madela shall remain stayed.”
At the stage of final arguments, the only opposition raised by the respondents was that the petitioner was not a resident of the village where the Anganwadi Centre was located.
The Court rejected the objection regarding residence and held that such an issue should have been raised at the application stage. The Bench recorded: “The eligibility is to be reckoned at the very threshold of the selection process and not after a candidate is declared successful.”
It was observed that the petitioner had participated in the selection transparently and without suppression of material information. The Court stated: “The petitioner applied for the post in question in terms of the advertisement and did not conceal anything or mislead either overtly or covertly, so as not to be held ineligible during scrutiny of the application.”
The Court referred to the Gram Sabha resolution dated 15.02.2018, and subsequent communications, including an undated letter from the Sarpanch and a communication dated 23.07.2018, which reiterated that the petitioner had been selected. The Bench observed: “Even it is not a case of the respondents that she is not meritorious as is borne out from the letters dated 15.02.2018 (Annex.3)… the aforesaid letters being the official record are not disputed.”
Addressing the impact of the prolonged vacancy, the Court noted: “General public is suffering as in the village concerned no Asha Sahyogini is rendering services since the subsequent advertisement 04.07.2018 (Annex.5) was also stayed by this Court.”
It was held that issuance of a second advertisement without cancelling the earlier one and without communicating with the Gram Panchayat was procedurally unsound. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s selection was validly made under the applicable framework and that the belated objection on eligibility lacked merit.
The writ petition was allowed. The Court directed that the petitioner be offered appointment to the post in question within thirty days of approaching the competent authority with a copy of the judgment. It was further ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to all consequential benefits associated with the appointment, with monetary benefits accruing from the date of joining. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Nidhi Singhvi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, Additional Advocate General; Ms. Yashvir Khandelwal, Advocate
Case Title: Santosh Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:14654
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13887/2018
Bench: Justice Arun Monga
[Read/Download order]
