Court sets aside Collector's order denying 10 bonus marks to petitioner for age criteria, directs appointment within 90 days
In a significant judgment delivered on February 9, 2026, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior clarified the eligibility criteria for awarding bonus marks in the recruitment of Anganwadi Sahayikas. The Court held that the eligibility for additional marks, specifically for being an unmarried lady above 30 years of age, must be determined as on the last date of submission of the application rather than an arbitrary cut-off date fixed in the policy.
The petitioner, Radha Rathore, had applied for the post of Anganwadi Sahayika for Ward No.13 in Bhind district. While the minimum and maximum age criteria (between 18 and 45 years) were to be assessed as on January 1, 2020, the petitioner argued that the 10 bonus marks allocated for unmarried women above 30 years of age should be considered as on the date she submitted her application. She contended that she was wrongly denied these marks because the Collector had applied the January 1, 2020 date for all age-related criteria, including bonus marks, which was not prescribed in the recruitment guidelines.
Initially, the provisional merit list placed the petitioner sixth with 63 marks, while the respondent no.4 was placed first with 69 marks and subsequently appointed. After the petitioner objected to the eligibility of the respondent no.4 and claimed her rightful 10 bonus marks, the District Level Grievance Redressal Committee disqualified the respondent no.4 but denied the petitioner the additional marks on the basis that she had not reached 30 years of age by January 1, 2020. The Collector upheld this view in appeal, leading to the petitioner’s challenge in the High Court.
Justice Ashish Shroti analyzed the recruitment circular issued by the Women and Child Development Department dated July 10, 2003. He noted that while Clause c-1 of the circular explicitly fixed January 1 of the selection year as the date to determine minimum and maximum age eligibility, Clause c-2, which allocates marks for various criteria including marital status and age, did not prescribe any such cut-off date. The Court observed that the Collector’s application of the January 1 cut-off date to Clause c-2 was contrary to the circular’s scheme.
Relying on established Supreme Court precedent in M.V. Nair v. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429, the Court reiterated that suitability and eligibility are generally to be determined as on the last date of application receipt unless otherwise specified. Since no such specific date was prescribed for bonus marks allocation, the petitioner’s age as on the application submission date was the relevant criterion. Given that she had crossed 30 years by that date, she was entitled to the 10 marks.
The Court also addressed objections raised by the respondent no.4 regarding the petitioner’s subsequent marriage during the pendency of litigation and alleged change of residence to another ward. The Court held that eligibility must be assessed as on the date of selection, and any change in circumstances post-selection does not affect the candidate’s entitlement.
Consequently, the High Court set aside the Collector’s order and the appointment of respondent no.4. It directed the authorities to grant the petitioner the additional 10 marks and appoint her as Anganwadi Sahayika within 90 days of the certified copy of the judgment.
This ruling reinforces the principle that recruitment eligibility and benefits should be assessed based on objective criteria fixed in recruitment notifications and within the relevant timelines, preventing arbitrary or retrospective disqualification of candidates. It also highlights the need for authorities to adhere to the exact language and scheme of recruitment guidelines to ensure fairness and transparency.
Bottom Line:
Eligibility of a candidate for appointment is to be determined as on the last date for submission of application unless a specific date is prescribed in the notification or circular.
Bottom Line:
Statutory provision(s):
Guidelines of Women and Child Development Department dated 10/07/2003 (recruitment circular for Anganwadi Sahayika)
Reference to Supreme Court judgment: M.V. Nair (Dr) v. Union of India (1993) 2 SCC 429
Radha Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Gwalior) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2875375
