The Rajasthan High Court has reinforced that state-issued administrative guidelines with mandatory timelines for appellate disposal are not mere policy suggestions but binding obligations. This ruling directly impacts thousands of contractual workers in the Integrated Child Development Services scheme whose appointments remain stalled due to bureaucratic inertia.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Smt. Bhanwari Sherdiya, a candidate for the position of Anganwadi Aasha Sahyogini in Nagaur district, sought judicial intervention after her first appeal against non-appointment remained pending for over two years. Despite fulfilling eligibility criteria and being recommended for appointment, no decision was rendered by the designated appellate authority.
Procedural History
- 2023: Petitioner filed first appeal before Chief Medical & Health Officer, Nagaur
- 2024: Appeal remained undecided despite repeated representations
- 2026: Writ petition filed before Rajasthan High Court seeking direction for timely disposal
- The Court noted that a nearly identical case, Kailashi Kumari Ashir v. State of Rajasthan, had been decided on 17.12.2024 with a binding direction to dispose of pending appeals within three months
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the appellate authorities to decide her appeal within a stipulated timeframe, invoking the principle of reasonable time and administrative accountability.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether state-issued guidelines prescribing mandatory timelines for appellate disposal in the ICDS scheme constitute binding obligations on administrative authorities, or whether they are merely advisory in nature.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the order passed in Kailashi Kumari Ashir v. State of Rajasthan, which interpreted Clause 7(D) of the Medical & Health Department’s guidelines dated 13.07.2022. The guidelines explicitly state that first appeals must be disposed of within one month. Counsel argued that such timelines, once issued by the state, create a legitimate expectation and a duty of due diligence under Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The respondents did not file any written submissions or appear before the Court. The absence of opposition was noted by the Court as an implicit admission of non-compliance with its own guidelines.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature of the guidelines issued by the Medical & Health Department, Rajasthan, dated 13.07.2022. These guidelines were not internal circulars but public directives issued under the statutory framework of the Integrated Child Development Services scheme. The Court emphasized that the guidelines were framed to ensure timely redressal of grievances and to uphold the dignity of contractual workers who serve at the grassroots.
"In view of the aforesaid guidelines, the petition is disposed of with a direction to Respondent No.5 - Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Udaipur, to dispose of the pending appeal of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments, and as far as possible, within a period of three months from the date the petitioner approaches the said authority with a web print of this order."
The Court applied the principle that when a public authority lays down a clear, unambiguous procedural standard for its own functioning, it cannot later evade responsibility by claiming discretion. The failure to adhere to these timelines amounts to arbitrary delay, which violates the right to equality and procedural fairness.
The Court further held that the precedent set in Kailashi Kumari Ashir was directly applicable, and there was no material distinction between the two cases to justify divergent treatment.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Court held that statutory guidelines prescribing appellate timelines are binding and directed the concerned authorities to dispose of the petitioner’s appeal within three months from the date of production of this order. All pending applications were dismissed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Administrative Guidelines Are Binding When Publicly Issued
- Practitioners must now treat published departmental guidelines with mandatory timelines as enforceable obligations
- Delay beyond stipulated periods can be challenged under Article 226 even without proof of malafide intent
- The burden shifts to the state to justify any deviation from its own procedural norms
Timeliness as a Component of Natural Justice
- Procedural fairness now explicitly includes adherence to self-imposed deadlines
- Courts will not tolerate indefinite pendency in cases involving welfare workers, especially where livelihoods are at stake
- Petitioners in similar ICDS, ASHA, or Anganwadi appointment disputes may now cite this judgment to demand expedited disposal
Precedent Can Be Applied Across Jurisdictions Within the State
- A ruling from one district bench on a state-wide policy applies uniformly across Rajasthan
- Counsel need not re-litigate identical issues; they may directly rely on Kailashi Kumari Ashir and this judgment as binding precedent
- This reduces litigation costs and promotes consistency in administrative justice
