Selection Process Vitiated By Bias: Kerala High Court Quashes List For Appointment Of Anganwadi Workers

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the selection list for appointment of Anganwadi workers in Anganwadi Centre Nos.81, 84, 96 and 155 of Chennithala Thriperumthura Grama Panchayat under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Mavelikkara Project.

Justice N. Nagaresh, on finding the selection process vitiated by bias, quashed the same and directed the respondents- Director and Officer of the Women and Child Development, the Child Development Project Officer, and the Chennithala Thriperumthura Grama Panchayat- to constitute a fresh Selection Committee and conduct the selection process afresh, considering the candidature of those who had already participated in the process, within 2 months. 

The petitioners in the present case had worked as temporary Anganwadi Workers earlier. When four permanent vacancies arose, the petitioners submitted their applications for permanent appointment. A Selection Committee was thereupon constituted by the respondents. It was alleged by the petitioners that the Panchayat was ruled by the ruling LDF and five representatives to the Committee were nominated purely based on political consideration.

The petitioners relied upon a Government Order (G.O.) dated December 30, 2018, which stipulated that every fourth vacancy would be set apart for promotion from Anganwadi Helpers and 10% vacancies in every project ought to be set apart for persons who had donated land for Anganwadi or for their dependents. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st and 2nd petitioners were accordingly, entitled for appointment. However, the petitioners alleged that pursuant to an illegal selection being conducted on December 28, 2019, a select list of 60 persons was published for appointment as Anganwadi Workers and another 39 persons for appointment as Anganwadi Helpers. 

The petitioners, represented by Advocate Rinny Stephen Chamaparambil argued that the persons selected were the kith and kin of the Selection Committee members, and that close relatives of the Panchayat President were ranked top in the list. It was averred that the selection itself was vitiated since the Interview Board consisted of persons who were close relatives of candidates assigned top ranks in the list. The counsel relied upon the decisions in Asok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (1985), and Rakesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2005) to submit that it would not be necessary to establish bias but that it would be sufficient to invalidate a selection process if it could be shown that there is reasonable likelihood of bias, and that in such a context, the selected candidate would not get any right when the selection list has been so vitiated by bias. 

The various respondents on the other hand, opposed the writ petition. It was argued that the Selection Committee had been constituted as per the criteria laid down in the G.O. It was argued that the respondent Selection Committee and the Child Development Project Officer were not expected to scrutinize the constitution of Selection Committee, but that the same had to be scrutinized by the District Social Justice Officer, who had so approved the constitution of the same. It was submitted that the petitioners had failed to advance any evidence to establish bias in giving marks to the respondent candidates. Additionally, it was argued that all the five nominated members were qualified and competent to act as Selection Committee members, and that the petitioners had not advanced a definite case of bias. 

The Court in this case found that some of the selected candidates were close relatives of the members of the Selection Committee. 

"Assuming for argument sake that there is no serious anomaly in awarding marks to the candidates who participated in the interview based on their qualifications, even then it is obvious that the Selection Committee consisted of interested parties vis-a-vis the candidates participating in the selection process," the Court observed. 

The Court took note of the Apex Court decision in A.K. Kraipak & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors (1969), and observed that a mere suspicion of bias would not be sufficient but that there ought to be a reasonable likelihood of bias. Thus, taking note of the present factual situation, the Court observed:

"When parents/spouse of candidates are actively involved in a Selection Committee, it has to be assumed that there is reasonable likelihood of bias taking into consideration human probabilities and ordinary course of human conduct". 

The Court quelled the argument of the respondents that all the candidates in the select list were not made parties to the writ petition, by relying on the Apex Court decision in Mukul Kumari Thyagi & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2020), wherein it was held that where inclusion in the select list of large number of candidates is on the basis of an arbitrary or illegal process, the impleadment of each and every person could not be insisted. 

The Court noted that the petitioners herein had approached the Court after taking part in the selection process and that normally, a candidate could not challenge the selection process after taking part in the same. However, the Court took note of the Apex Court decision in Dr.(Major) Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2019) wherein the said principle had been differentiated. 

"Therefore, I find that the writ petition at the instance of the petitioners is amply justified in the facts and circumstances of the case," the Court observed while issuing the aforementioned directions, and disposing the petition. 

Government Pleader K.G. Sarojini, and Advocates T.B. Hood, M. Isha, Amal Kasha, anil Kunjachan, and T.M. Reshmi appeared on behalf of the respondents. 

Case Title: Sreedevi S. & Ors. v. The Selection Committee, Chennithala, Thripperumthara Grama Panchayat & Ors. 

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 224

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment