The Allahabad High Court has set aside the cancellation of an Anganbari Worker’s appointment, ruling that a sister-in-law (jethani) can only be treated as a member of the “same family” under the relevant Government Order if both brothers live together in a common household and share a kitchen.
Justice Ajit Kumar delivered the judgment while allowing a writ petition filed by Kumari Sonam, whose appointment was cancelled by the District Programme Officer, Bareilly, on June 13, 2025. The cancellation was based on the ground that her jethani was already working as an Anganbari Assistant at the same centre.
Case Background
The petitioner contended that her jethani resided in a separate house with a distinct house number and, therefore, did not fall within the definition of her husband’s immediate family, even though both belonged to the same extended family of her father-in-law. She also produced a family register document showing separate residence details.
The cancellation was challenged in light of the Government Order dated May 21, 2023, which under Clause 12(iv) prohibits appointing two women from the same family as Anganbari Worker and Anganbari Assistant in the same centre.
The petitioner’s counsel further referred to the definition of “family” as provided in the medical department’s rules for government employees and under Order XXXII-A, Rule 6, arguing that a jethani cannot reasonably be considered part of the same family for the purpose of such appointments.
Court’s Observations
The High Court first noted a serious procedural flaw—no notice or opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioner before passing the cancellation order, despite its adverse civil consequences.
Examining the meaning of “same family” under Clause 12(iv) of the Government Order, the Court observed:
“A daughter-in-law (jethani) would not become a member of the same family unless both brothers are living together with a common house and kitchen.”
Since the petitioner and her jethani lived separately, the Court held that the restriction under the Government Order did not apply in this case.
Final Decision
The Court quashed the cancellation order, holding it invalid both on procedural grounds (violation of natural justice) and on merits. The District Programme Officer was directed to reinstate the petitioner as Anganbari Worker and allow her to resume her duties.
