Case Note & Summary
The petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarti at village Kandari, District Jalna, on 25.03.2011, after executing a bond declaring that she had only two children in compliance with the Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005 and Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010. Subsequently, respondents 5 to 11 filed a complaint on 10.07.2019 alleging that the petitioner actually had three children and had made a false declaration. The Child Development Project Officer, after an enquiry, passed a termination order on 19.08.2019, holding that the petitioner was disqualified due to having more than two children. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 30.03.2021, confirming the termination. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging both orders. The core legal issue before the High Court was whether the petitioner incurred disqualification under the Rules of 2005 and the Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010, considering that all three children were born before the commencement of the Rules on 28.03.2005. The petitioner argued that the last child was born on 20.05.2004, prior to the commencement of the Rules, and therefore the disqualification did not apply. The respondents contended that the petitioner had executed a bond declaring only two children and secured employment on a false declaration, justifying termination. The Court examined Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005, particularly the proviso to Rule 3, which states that a person having more than two children on the date of commencement of the Rules shall not be disqualified for appointment so long as the number of children does not increase after that date. The Court found it undisputed that the petitioner had three children born in 1996, 2000, and 2004, all before 28.03.2005, and no child was born thereafter. The Court observed that the condition regarding small family in the Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010 was pari materia to the Rules of 2005, and thus no disqualification could be attracted. The Court also referred to the Supreme Court decision in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India, which held that even if a candidate makes a false declaration, the competent authority must exercise its power reasonably and not arbitrarily, considering the facts of the case. Applying this principle, the Court concluded that the petitioner could not be said to have incurred disqualification under the Rules of 2005 or the Government Resolution, and therefore the termination and the appellate order were invalid. The writ petition was accordingly allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed, with the petitioner entitled to consequential benefits.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disqualification for Small Family - Proviso to Rule 3 protects individuals with more than two children on date of commencement of rules as long as number does not increase - Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005, Rules 3, 4, 5 - The petitioner had three children born between 1996 and 2004, all prior to commencement of Rules on 28.03.2005; she did not have any child after that date, hence no disqualification arose. Held that termination was invalid. (Paras 9-13) B) Service Law - Termination of Anganwadi Karyakarti - Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010 Clause (D) is pari materia to Rules of 2005 - The GR condition regarding small family cannot disqualify a person whose children were born before the Rules took effect. Held that the petitioner's termination under the GR was unsustainable. (Paras 12-13) C) Administrative Law - False Declaration and Judicial Review - Supreme Court in Pawan Kumar v. Union of India requires competent authority to exercise power reasonably and not arbitrarily even when false declaration is made - Although petitioner's declaration appeared incorrect, the authority had to consider that no disqualification existed under the Rules, and termination solely on false declaration without considering statutory protection would be arbitrary. Held that termination order and appellate order are liable to be set aside. (Para 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether petitioner incurred disqualification under Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005 and Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010 despite having three children all born before commencement of Rules; Whether termination based on alleged false declaration of number of children was valid
Final Decision
The High Court held that petitioner did not incur disqualification under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules, 2005 or Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010 because all three children were born before commencement of the Rules. Consequently, the termination order dated 19.08.2019 and the appellate order dated 30.03.2021 were invalid and liable to be set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
Law Points
- Person having more than two children on date of commencement of Maharashtra Civil Services (Declaration of Small Family) Rules
- 2005 is not disqualified so long as number of children does not increase after commencement
- Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010 clause (D) is pari materia to Rules of 2005
- false declaration alone does not justify arbitrary termination and competent authority must exercise power reasonably
- termination based on pre-existing children born before 28.03.2005 is invalid
