[Anganwadi Workers] Acquisition Of Higher Qualification At A Later Date Not Determinative For Fixing Seniority: JKL High Court

The ruling came to be pronounced by a bench comprising Justice Javed Iqbal Wani while hearing a catena of petitions filed by Anganwadi workers challenging the government order issued in February 2019 relating to the selection of Anganwadi Workers as Supervisors.

In their pleas the petitioners contended that the seniority of the Graduate Anganwari Workers was to be reckoned from the date of their initial appointment as provided under Rule 24 of J&K Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules of 1956 [CCA Rules], however, as per the Clause-1 of the impugned order, the seniority of the Anganwari Workers, who have acquired higher qualification (Graduation) during service shall be taken from the date of acquiring the higher qualification instead of the date of their initial appointment.

The moot question that fell for adjudication before the bench was as to whether the seniority of a Graduate Anganwari Worker who acquires qualification of Graduation after engagement as Anganwari Worker is required to be fixed according to the date of initial engagement/appointment as Anganwari Worker as envisaged under Rule 24 of CCA Rules or from the date such Anganwari Worker acquires qualification of Graduation as is provided by the impugned Clause.

The bench noted that in terms of Rules of 1991, the post of Anganwari Workers is identified as one class under Clause-III and does not make any distinction on the basis of educational qualification as such.

Keeping in view the said position, Justice Wani maintained that a common seniority list of all Anganwari Workers, notwithstanding any disparity of qualification, is required to be maintained on the basis of the initial engagement and irrespective of the date on which any Anganwari Worker acquires Graduate qualification. Undertaking any process of maintaining a separate seniority for both Graduates and Matriculate Anganwari Workers on the basis of acquiring higher qualification would be contrary to the Rules, the bench underscored.

Observing that the formulation of principles for fixation of seniority, promotion and determination of seniority are matters of policy which may find expression either in statutory rules or administrative orders including executive instructions, the court ruled that when a particular field is occupied by statutory rules then the administrative orders or executive instructions cannot be issued to nullify the effect or impact of the statutory rules.

Deliberating on the issue of the conflict between a statutory rule and an administrator order, the bench explained that the statutory rule has to prevail and the administrative order/executive instruction has to give way to the statutory rule if both occupy the same field.

Applying the said position to the instant matter the court said that since the statutory rules of 1991 occupy the field insofar as determination and fixation of seniority of Anganwari Workers the impugned Clause under challenge pales into insignificance and the same cannot therefore sustain as being contrary to the mandate of said rules.

In order to buttress the course adopted the bench placed reliance on a Supreme court judgment in a case titled Viman Vaman Awale Vs. Gangadhar Makhriya Charitable Trust and others wherein the court recorded that the acquisition of higher qualification at a later date, even when such a higher qualification is the requisite qualification for the higher post, will not be determinative for fixing the seniority.

"However for the purpose of computing the experience with a particular qualification, the relevant date would be when relevant qualification has been acquired. Previous experience without particular qualification will have to be ignored," it clarified.

Accordingly the bench held that the clause incorporated in the impugned government order is contrary to the Rules of 1991 read with Rule 24 of CCA Rules of 1956 and thus not in conformity with law on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment and quashed the same.

Case Title: Ms Syeda Nazir Vs State of J&K & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 35

Coram: Justice Javed Iqbal Wani

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anees ul Islam, Advocate Mr. Momin Khan, Adv. Mr. M. Ashraf Wani, Advocate, Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate, Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Bhat, Adv., Mr. M. S. Reshi, Advocate

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. Jahangir Iqbal Ganai, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Maha Majeed, Adv. Mr. T. H. Khawaja, Advocate, Mr. Sheikh Feroz, DAG Mr. Azhar ul Amin, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order