The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order cancelling the appointment of an Anganbari worker, ruling that a sister-in-law (jethani) living in a separate house does not fall within the definition of “same family” for the purpose of a government rule barring two women from the same family from being appointed as Anganbari Worker and Assistant at the same center. The Court also found the cancellation order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
The judgment was delivered by a single-judge bench of Justice Ajit Kumar in a writ petition filed by Kumari Sonam challenging the cancellation of her appointment. The Court directed the immediate reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Kumari Sonam, was appointed as an Anganbari Worker. Her appointment was subsequently cancelled by the District Programme Officer, Bareilly, through an order dated June 13, 2025. The primary reason cited for the cancellation was that the petitioner’s sister-in-law (jethani), Smt. Ramwati, was already employed as an Anganbari Assistant in the same block. This was deemed to be in contravention of a Government Order dated May 21, 2023, which prohibits the appointment of two women from the same family to the posts of Anganbari Worker and Anganbari Assistant at the same center.
Aggrieved by this order, Kumari Sonam filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking the quashing of the cancellation order.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the petitioner argued on two main grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that the impugned order was passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice, especially as the order carried adverse civil consequences.
Secondly, on the legal interpretation of the Government Order, the petitioner’s counsel contended that she and her sister-in-law do not belong to the “same family” as prohibited by the relevant clause. Clause 12(iv) of the Government Order states: “एक आंगनबाड़ी केन्द्र पर एक ही परिवार की दो महिलाओं की नियुक्ति आंगनबाड़ी कार्यकत्री व सहायिका के पद पर नहीं की जीयेगी।” (At one Anganbari center, two women of the same family will not be appointed to the post of Anganbari worker and assistant.)
To support this, the petitioner presented the family register, which showed that her husband resides in house no. 126, while her sister-in-law resides in a separate house, no. 107. The counsel further drew upon the definition of “family” from other legal contexts, including rules for medical assistance to government employees and Order XXXII-A, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to argue that a sister-in-law living separately would not be included. Reliance was also placed on the judgment in Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, which dealt with the definition of family under rules for fair price shop allotment.
The Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the State of U.P., sought to defend the cancellation order but was unable to dispute the petitioner’s assertion that the order was passed without notice and opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the counsel could not contest the petitioner’s interpretation that the relevant clause of the Government Order only bars two women from the “same family.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Justice Ajit Kumar, after hearing the parties, found merit in the petitioner’s arguments. The Court concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable on both procedural and substantive grounds.
The Court observed that a sister-in-law (jethani) would not automatically become a member of the petitioner’s family for the purposes of the said rule. The judgment clarified the condition under which they might be considered part of the same family, stating, “daughter-in-law (jethani) can be considered to be a member of family provided both brothers are living together having common kitchen and house.”
Since the petitioner had provided evidence of living in a separate house from her sister-in-law, the Court held that the bar under the Government Order was not applicable. The Court explicitly concluded, “it cannot be said that both sister-in-law (jethani) and petitioner were women of the same family, and hence, order impugned is rendered unsustainable on both grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and also on merits.”
Decision of the Court
Allowing the writ petition, the Allahabad High Court quashed the order dated June 13, 2025, passed by the District Programme Officer, Bareilly.
The Court directed the authorities to reinstate the petitioner as an Anganbari Worker to discharge her duties and to pay her salary month by month. The judgment also entitled the petitioner to all consequential benefits, including the payment of arrears of salary for the period she was unlawfully denied work due to the impugned order.
