JUDGMENT : Jyoti Saran, J. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Apurva Kumar, A.C. to G.A.-4, for the State and Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur in Case No. 83 (Misc.)/2012-13, whereby the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Anganwari Sevika, Kendra No.43/9, Block/Anchal-Muraul, Gram Panchayat-Mirapur in the district of Muzaffarpur has been cancelled on grounds that her father was a Government Teacher at the time of her appointment as an Anganwari Sevika in the year 2008 and thus in view of the stipulations present at Clause 3(M+-) of the guidelines issued by the Department of Welfare dated 3.10.2006 she stood disqualified for such appointment. A copy of the order passed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur is impugned at Annexure-6 and has been affirmed in appeal by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur when the appeal filed by the writ petitioner bearing Service Appeal Case No.246 of 2013 has been dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2013 impugned at Annexure-8. 3. Facts of the case briefly stated is that for the appointment to the post of Anganwari Sevika at Anganwari Kendra No.43/09, Gram Panchayat Raj-Mirapur, Block/Anchal-Muraul, District-Muzaffarpur, a merit list was prepared and is present at Annexure-1 in which the name of the petitioner appears at serial no.1 and that of the respondent no.9 appears at serial no.2. For reasons not known, the respondent no.9 was appointed in preference to the petitioner and which was questioned by her before the District Programme Officer, Muzaffarpur who vide order bearing Memo No.14 dated 9.1.2008 present at Annexure-3 quashed the appointment of the respondent no.9 and directed for fresh appointment and in consequence whereof the writ petitioner was appointed. The appointment letter of the petitioner is present at Annexure-4 and is dated 14.7.2008. 4. The respondent no.9 questioned her termination before this Court through CWJC No.3408 of 2008 and a Bench of this Court inter alia on grounds that the order passed by the District Programme Officer was without jurisdiction as the power stood transferred to the District Magistrate, quashed the order of termination of the respondent no.9. 4. The respondent no.9 questioned her termination before this Court through CWJC No.3408 of 2008 and a Bench of this Court inter alia on grounds that the order passed by the District Programme Officer was without jurisdiction as the power stood transferred to the District Magistrate, quashed the order of termination of the respondent no.9. The Bench in consideration of the submission and even while quashing the termination order of the respondent no.9, yet allowed the petitioner to continue on her post, while directing the District Magistrate, Samastipur to consider the matter and pass appropriate orders. 5. It is thereafter that a case was registered by the Collector, Muzaffarpur giving rise to Case No.83 (Misc.)/2012-13. The Collector, Muzaffarpur relying upon clause 3(M+-) of the guidelines dated 3.10.2006 held the petitioner ineligible to hold the post of Anganwari Sevika on grounds that her father was a Government Teacher and which is a disqualification under the said provision. The order of the Collector, Muzaffarpur impugned at Annexure-6 has been confirmed by the appellate authority who is the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur vide order impugned at Annexure-8 and feeling aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. 7. It is the argument of Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that whereas the petitioner's parental home is in Vaishali, her matrimonial home is in Muzaffarpur. He submits that in view of the stipulations present in the guidelines dated 3.10.2006 the relevant clause 3(M+-) disqualifying the candidates on being the relative of a Government servant can only be pressed to service if the father of the petitioner was a resident of the district in which the matrimonial home of the petitioner is situated but since the two are distinct hence the disqualification clause cannot be applied in this case. Learned counsel further in reference to the amendments introduced in the said disqualification clause subsequently, has submitted that appreciating the futility of the provision, it has been deleted. Per contra, it is the argument of Mr. Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent as well as Mr. Learned counsel further in reference to the amendments introduced in the said disqualification clause subsequently, has submitted that appreciating the futility of the provision, it has been deleted. Per contra, it is the argument of Mr. Trivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondent as well as Mr. Apurva Kumar, learned State Counsel relying upon the admission of the writ petitioner before the Collector that since it is not in dispute that the father of the petitioner did hold a Government post at the time of her appointment hence in view of the stipulation present in clause -3(M+-) of the guidelines dated 3.10.2006 which was in force at the time of appointment of the writ petitioner, she was ineligible to hold the post and stood disqualified and thus her appointment has rightly been interfered with by the Collector, Muzaffarpur as affirmed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur which calls for no interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the records. 9. In my opinion, the only issue which would require consideration is whether the provisions underlying clause-3(M+-) of the guidelines issued by the department dated 3.10.2006 which undisputedly was in force at the time of initiation of the selection process and resulted in the appointment of the petitioner vide appointment letter dated 14.7.2008 placed at Annexure-4, disqualified the petitioner, whose father was admittedly a Government Teacher at the time when she applied for the post of Anganwari Sevika. 10. Clause 3(x) and 3(M+-) of the guidelines issued by the Department of Welfare dated 3.10.2006 would bear relevant importance for the issue at hand and runs as under:- 3- vkaxuckM+h lsfodkvksa ds p;u ds fy, vgZrk;sa 'krsZ% x- vkaxuckM+h lsfodk ml Vksyk@xkao@eksgYyk dh LFkk;h fuoklh gksxh] ftl Vksyk@xkao@eksgYyk esa vkaxuckM+h dsUnz vofLFkr gks] ;kfu mls vkaxuckM+h dsUnz dh lsok {ks= dk fuoklh gksuk vfuok;Z gSA M+- yksd lsodksa eqf[k;k] iapk;r lfefr ds lnL;@vkfn Lo;a ;k muds fjLrsnkj fofHkUu ljdkjh lkefxz;ksa ds fodzsrkvksa tSls tu forj.k iz.kkyh fodzsrk] ?kqeUrq rsy ds fodzsrk Dealer vUrjfoHkkxh; M+kd[kkuk dehZ (intra departement Post Office Employee) ljdkjh ,oa v)Zljdkjh lsodksa ds fj'rsnkj ;Fkk] csVh@iRuh@iq=o/kw@ikS=o/kw dk p;u bl in ds fy, ugha fd;k tk;sxkA 11. It is not in dispute that only married woman are eligible for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika. It is not in dispute that only married woman are eligible for appointment to the post of Anganbari Sevika. It thus bears relevance to consider the context in which the disqualification clause present at clause 3(M+-) disqualifies married daughters. Apparently the disqualification stipulation present in the said clause in so far as a wife, daughter-in-law and grand daughter-in-law, is concerned leaves no grey area rather it is only in case of a married daughter as in the present case, that the clause would require an interpretation and cannot be mechanically applied. 12. A plain reading of clause-3(M+-) of the guidelines dated 3.1.2006 perhaps and giving a literal interpretation would not give any other result than as impugned herein. The issue which falls for consideration is whether the prescription present at clause-3(M+-) is to be read in isolation or has to be read along side clause-3(M+-) which mandates that an applicant has to be the resident of the Tola concerned in which the centre is established. Meaning thereby whether the applicant is a wife, a daughter, a daughter-in-law or a granddaughter-in-law, she has to be a resident of the Tola/Village/Mohalla where the Anganwari Kendra is existing. 13. The petitioner states that she got married in the year 1992. She has also mentioned that her parental home is in the district of Vaishali and though her father was a Government school teacher at the relevant time but since after her marriage in the year 1992, she has moved to her matrimonial home in the district of Muzzafarpur. Undisputedly neither the husband of the petitioner nor her father-in-law holds any Government post or any other post which would disqualify her from such appointment as found in clause-3(M+-). The question is whether in the circumstances where admittedly the father of the petitioner held a Government post in the district of Vaishali, the said circumstance would be a disqualification for the petitioner to apply in the district of Muzaffarpur where she is residing with her husband since after her marriage in 1992. 14. In my opinion any such disqualification would run counter to the object for which the provision has been stipulated. It is the object which is sought to be achieved under the provisions, which has to be a guiding factor. In other words the provision under consideration has to be interpreted with the object so sought to be achieved. 14. In my opinion any such disqualification would run counter to the object for which the provision has been stipulated. It is the object which is sought to be achieved under the provisions, which has to be a guiding factor. In other words the provision under consideration has to be interpreted with the object so sought to be achieved. As I have mentioned at the outset, the provision of clause 3(M+-) is put to test in its application in the case of married daughters and clause 3(x) requires her to be a resident of the tola/village/mohalla concerned. Had it been a case where the parental home of the petitioner as well as her matrimonial home, both would have been situated in the district of Muzaffarpur perhaps then the circumstance that the father of the petitioner held a Government post, would have been an issue of disqualification because in the said case the petitioner as a daughter was a permanent resident of the district of Muzaffarpur and even after marriage she continued to be in the same district. In my opinion the context in which the daughter has been disqualified under clause-3(M+-) of "the guidelines of 2006" inter alia on grounds that she is not related to a Government servant has to be read in conjunction with the primary requirement of the applicant being a permanent resident of the Tola/Village/Mohalla, in which the centre is established and cannot be disassociated with the said requirement as suggested by Mr. Trivedi. The reason is simple and that is because it is only married woman who can apply for the post. 15. Although, Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has endeavored to suggest that it is considering its irrelevance that even such requirement has been deleted in the subsequent guidelines but in my opinion it is the provision as it existed at the time of appointment of the petitioner in the year 2008, which would be a guiding factor and not the amendments made subsequently. In my opinion stipulation present in the 2006 guidelines, in force at the relevant time in so far as it disqualifies a daughter of a Government servant from appointment as Anganbari Sevika as present at clause 3(M+-) cannot be applied independent of clause 3(x) which requires her to be a resident of the same tola/mohalla/village rather both stipulations have to be satisfied. 16. 16. A disqualification clause in any statute has to be given a constructive and a purposeful interpretation which sub serves the object for which it is framed and is not to be given an obstructive interpretation which appears an absurdity and acts as an obstruction to appointments. Perhaps a mechanical application of the provision of clause 3(M+-) to the facts of the case in hand, may lead to the conclusion present in the impugned orders but considering that the eligibility qualification is extended only to married daughters and not unmarried ones, then in view of the mandatory condition present at clause- 3(x), in my opinion, until such time that a candidate's parental home is also situated in the same district as her matrimonial home, she cannot be disqualified on grounds that her father or brother was holding a Government post or any other position which is a disqualification under clause 3(M+-). It would be an absurdity striking at the root of Article 14 of the Constitution, to hold, that merely because the father of the petitioner held a post of Government teacher in the district of Vaishali, she became disqualified to apply against the post of Anganbari Sevika not only in the district of Vaishali but anywhere in the State of Bihar, even if she has moved out of her parental district after marriage. 17. For the reasons and discussions aforementioned, I am not persuaded with the opinion expressed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur impugned at Annexure-6 as affirmed by the appellate authority impugned at Annexure-8 and as a result the order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the Collector, Muzaffarpur present at Annexure-6 together with the order dated 30.10.2013 passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur cannot be upheld and are accordingly quashed and set aside. 18. The writ petition is allowed. The petitioner stand restored to her post.