Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, held that the recompense received by an Anganwadi Worker is ‘a mere pittance’ and therefore it is not unnatural for such workers to also render other services to earn additional income. 

The bench Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain held, “The recompense received by Anganwadi Workers is a mere pittance and it is often impossible for an Anganwadi Worker to sustain herself and her family, on the amount received from such work”. 

Per the facts of the case, Parmila Devi submitted an application in response to an advertisement seeking to recruit 290 Supervisor Grade-II (Female) positions within the Department of Women and Child Development. Of these vacancies, 25% were allocated for women who had served as Anganwadi Workers for at least ten years, with a minimum qualification of matriculation, while the remaining 75% were reserved for direct recruitment of candidates with a degree in Home Science, Social Work, or Child Development.

The advertisement specified an age limit of 27 years, with certain relaxations: five years for SC/ST candidates, three years for OBC, ten years for PH, fifteen years for PH & SC/ST, and thirteen years for PH & OBC. Additionally, departmental candidates, ex-servicemen, and others were to receive age relaxation as per relevant guidelines. Women, widows, and Anganwadi Workers were also entitled to upper age relaxation, with the latter granted an extension equivalent to their service period, up to a maximum of fifteen years.

Parmila Devi participated in the selection process conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) and passed various stages successfully. However, while awaiting an appointment, she was informed that her candidacy was rejected on the grounds of being over the age limit.

Consequently, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal to challenge the rejection notice dated August 16, 2019, seeking an order for her appointment to the Supervisor Grade-II (Female) post. The Tribunal allowed her appeal on August 11, 2023, prompting the DSSSB to contest the decision before the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Tribunal's decision indicated that the only issue raised by the DSSSB was Parmila Devi’s submission of two certificates: one from the Department of Women and Child Development, stating she had served as an Anganwadi Worker from May 14, 1997, to July 18, 2007, and another from the New Indian Educational and Cultural Society, showing her employment there from May 25, 2000, to February 8, 2007. The DSSSB questioned the authenticity of these documents, suggesting that due to the overlap in periods covered by both certificates, one might have been fabricated.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that Parmila Devi had adequately explained the two certificates, noting that at the time, her Anganwadi role was not a civil position, allowing her to work limited hours and concurrently serve the NGO. Both certificates were deemed valid, and the rejection notice dated August 16, 2019, was quashed. 

The Tribunal instructed the DSSSB to verify the certificate from the Department of Women and Child Development and, if authenticated, extend an offer of appointment to Parmila Devi, along with all related benefits on a notional basis and from the date of joining on an actual basis. 

The court noted that, in exercising its writ jurisdiction, it cannot act as an appellate body to reassess the factual findings of the learned Tribunal. Upon reviewing the Tribunal's reasoning in accepting the Anganwadi experience certificate submitted by Parmila Devi, the court found no grounds for declaring the decision so unreasonable as to necessitate intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 

It was widely recognized that the remuneration for Anganwadi Workers was minimal, making it difficult for them to support themselves and their families solely on such earnings. Consequently, it was not uncommon for these workers to seek additional evening employment to supplement their income.

The court was thus convinced that the Tribunal's rationale did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. 

Since both certificates overlapped, it appeared implausible that Parmila Devi could have engaged in both roles concurrently. Consequently, the Board did not consider these documents valid due to their apparent duplicity. Additionally, the Board adhered strictly to the documents uploaded through the e-dossier system, disallowing any subsequent submission of hard copies, as per its policy.

After reviewing the Tribunal's order, the court concluded that no justification existed for intervention. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed at the outset.

Case Title: Govt Of NCT Of Delhi v Parmila Devi (2024:DHC:7732-DB)