Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a matter involving a clash between a transfer order on account of marriage and a promotion of an Anganwari Helper to the post of a Worker, the basic legal issue was the interplay between a rule which granted first opportunity of promotion to the Anganwari Helper when a vacancy arose, and a rule which allowed transfer of a Worker or Helper upon marriage at her husband’s place of residence. The Division Bench of G.S. Sandhawalia*, CJ., and Bipin C. Negi, J., while dismissing the appeal, observed that marriage-based transfer order of an employee cannot take away another employee’s right to be considered for promotion which is a legitimate expectation, and consequently, upheld the Single Judge’s order granting promotion to the Anganwari Helper.
Background
A D.O. Note dated 13 June 2024 led to a few transfers to the Anganwari Centre, Kashpo, including that of the appellant, an Anganwari Worker, on account of her marriage. The writ petitioner was already serving as a Helper and therefore, she approached the Court seeking promotion from the due date i.e. 1 May 2024, with all consequential benefits.
The writ petitioner had relied on Rule 5 of the Notification dated 19 June 2010 (Notification) and argued that she should be given first opportunity to be appointed as Worker. The Single Judge had noted that she had been appointed as Anganwari Helper at the Centre on 6 August 2000 and had completed more than 24 years of service when the vacancy arose on 30 April 2024. However, the appellant’s transfer order of 16 July 2024 had taken away the writ petitioner’s vested right of promotion, which was held to be unjustified. The Single Judge had issued directions to grant appointment or promotion to the writ petitioner as Anganwari Worker at the Centre, as against the appellant who had been transferred to the same Centre on account of her marriage.
The State did not file an appeal, and the present appeal was filed only by the appellant in the writ petition. She relied on Rule 4 of the Notification which provided that if there was a vacancy at the place of her husband’s place of residence or marriage, she could be adjusted on her request within one month of the date of arising of such vacancy. Thus, it was submitted that she had been rightly posted.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that Rule 5 of the Notification clearly provided that when a post of Anganwari Worker falls vacant and the matter is not sub judice, the Anganwari Helper of that Centre must be given first opportunity for appointment as Worker, subject to her qualifications and that no advertisement for the same would be required.
The Court opined that the rule of consideration for promotion has greater weightage since the appellant was already occupying the post of Anganwari Worker. By virtue of the transfer order, the writ petitioner’s right to be considered for promotion to the post of Anganwari Worker was taken away, even though she was serving as Anganwari Helper for the last 24 years. The Court observed that the right of consideration for promotion is a legitimate expectation of an employee which cannot be taken away on account of a transfer order on ground of marriage, which is only recommendatory.
Consequently, the Court, while dismissing the appeal, upheld the well-reasoned order of the Single Judge by which the petitioner was declared entitled to be considered for promotion.
[Tara Devi v. State of H.P., LPA No. 837 of 2025, decided on 5-3-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice G.S. Sandhawalia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Devender Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Priyanka Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.