Kumari Rekha Bharati v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Background
In 2006, a Gram Panchayat in Bihar invited applications for the post of Anganwadi Sevika (a government-linked child-and-maternal-welfare worker). A rival candidate (Respondent No. 9) was initially ranked first, but the appellant was appointed and that appointment was later cancelled after a complaint. On further review, the District Magistrate found the rival candidate herself ineligible because her father was a government schoolteacher, a disqualifying relationship under the applicable guidelines, but the High Court later reinstated the rival candidate by reasoning that the disqualification rule should not apply to a married daughter living separately from her father.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interpretation was wrong: the eligibility guidelines disqualifying relatives (including daughters) of government servants made no distinction between married and unmarried daughters, and such a restriction could not be read into the rule by a court. Since the guideline, as it stood in 2006, plainly covered the rival candidate, her appointment could not survive scrutiny. However, because the disqualifying clause itself had since been struck down in 2010, the Court declined to simply hand the post back to the appellant; instead it set aside the High Court's order, directed the authorities to issue a fresh notification and conduct a fresh selection under the current rules, allowed both women to reapply, and let the rival candidate continue in the post only until the fresh process concluded.
Lesson Learnt
Eligibility rules for public appointments must be applied exactly as framed at the time of selection, without courts adding exceptions not found in the text, but where the rule itself has since changed, relief may take the form of a fresh, rule-compliant selection process rather than simply reinstating the original candidate.