Caste-Based Preference In Appointments Can Only Be Granted If Minimum Educational Qualification Is Met: MP HC Quashes Termination Of ASHA Worker
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Jabalpur Bench, recently, quashed the termination of an Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) worker. The worker was terminated on account of a state policy giving preference to candidates from Scheduled Tribes (ST) in areas where their population exceeds 50%. The court held that the application of this policy was erroneous in this case due to...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court at its Jabalpur Bench, recently, quashed the termination of an Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) worker. The worker was terminated on account of a state policy giving preference to candidates from Scheduled Tribes (ST) in areas where their population exceeds 50%. The court held that the application of this policy was erroneous in this case due to the educational qualifications of the candidates involved.
The single judge bench of Justice Vivek Jain held the termination was unjustified and stated that the minimum educational qualification for an ASHA worker is a Class X pass, and in the absence of such candidates, a Class VIII pass candidate could be considered only under special circumstances. The Petitioner, being Class XII pass, was more qualified than the only ST candidate, who was Class VIII pass.
The court held that: “It is settled in law that preference can be granted only in the event the other things are equal. Once the minimum educational qualification was Class-X pass, then the preference could be operated only if the candidate of ST category was also at least Class-X pass, and only in that event the aspect of preference would have come into picture.”
The court referred to the Supreme Court's precedents such as Secy., A.P. Public Service Commission v. Y.V.V.R. Srinivasulu, (2003), where it was held that the term 'preference' does not imply an automatic right to selection. The preference is only applicable when candidates are equally qualified, and it should not be treated as a rule of reservation or an overriding factor.
The background of the case can be traced to the order dated July 1, 2024, which terminated the petitioner's (Phoolwati Prajapati) appointment as an ASHA worker. The termination was in line with a directive from the Chief Medical and Health Officer of Sidhi, based on a letter dated June 21, 2024. The letter ordered that since the ST population in the village exceeded 50%, preference should be given to a candidate from that community, which led to the petitioner's dismissal, in spite of her appointment being initially valid as per the order dated March 24, 2023.
The petitioner challenged the termination, arguing that she was dismissed without any opportunity to be heard and was duly appointed based on her qualifications. There was no adverse record against her and the termination was arbitrary since it did not consider her merit and was based on the population statistics of the village.
The State argued that the termination was based on its policy that mandates preference for candidates from the SC/ST community in villages where their population exceeds 50%. The village in question had an ST population of 246, while the SC population, to which the petitioner belonged was 29. The State contended that this population dynamic warranted her termination as her appointment violated Clause-9 of the circular dated August 2, 2022.
The court concluded that “as no candidate having minimum qualification was in the zone of consideration belonging to ST category, the respondents have wrongly operated the preference by order dated 21.06.2024 and terminating the services of the petitioner by consequential order dated 01.07.2024.”
Case title: Smt. Phoolwati Prajapati Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (MP) 197
Case No: WP No. 20052 of 2024