Anganwadi Worker. - under G.O. Ms. No. 28, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 2.12.2004, the Committee selected and appointed the 1st respondent-writ petitioner by order dated 8.1.2009 as Anganwadi Worker. = since the issue of eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner still remains to be decided by the competent authority, without interfering with the order impugned, we dispose of the writ appeal by further directing the District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, the 2nd respondent herein, to place the representation of the appellant and the issue with regard to eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner before the Committee as constituted under G.O. Ms. No. 28, dated 2.12.2004 referred to above, and as duly revised under G.O. Ms. No.15, dated 4.4.2012 to enable the said Committee to consider the eligibility of the 1st respondent-writ petitioner to hold the said post of Anganwadi worker of Badapuram Village in accordance with law. We hope and trust that the said Committee will follow principles of natural justice and will give notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the 1st respondent-writ petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA

AND

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS  V. AFZULPURKAR

Writ Appeal No.147 of 2013

DATED: 15-03-2013

Between:

K. Rajeswari

                   …  Appellant

And                                                                                                     

B. Kumari,

R/o. Badapuram Village,

Darakonda Mandal,

Prakasam District and others.

                             … Respondents

                                                                           

HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI N.V. RAMANA

AND

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS  V. AFZULPURKAR

Writ Appeal No. 147 of 2013

JUDGMENT: (per the Acting Chief Justice Sri N.V. Ramana)

        This appeal filed by the appellant-4^th respondent questions the order of the learned Single Judge allowing Writ Petition No. 601 of 2010 by order dated 29.10.2010.

        We have hard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

        The facts of the case disclose that by following procedure

under G.O. Ms. No. 28, Women Development, Child Welfare and Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 2.12.2004, the Committee selected and appointed the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner by order dated 8.1.2009 as Anganwadi Worker.  

It appears that the appellant herein filed a representation objecting to the appointment of 1^st respondent-writ petitioner on the ground that she is not a resident of Badapuram Village, but is a resident of Jagannadhapuram Village of Tarlapadu Mandal.  

Further the appellant moved this Court in Writ Petition No. 7093 of 2009 alleging inaction on the part of the official respondents in considering the representation filed by her and by order dated 6.4.2009, this Court directed the 1^st respondent therein, i.e.,  the District Collector/Committee Chairman, Prakasam District at Ongole to dispose of the said representation of the appellant after issuing notice and after enquiring into the nativity and eligibility of the 1^strespondent-writ petitioner.  

It further appears that the Project Director, District Women and Child Development Agency (D.W.C.D.A.), Ongole issued notices, considered the explanation of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner and ordered removal of the                1^st respondent-writ petitioner on the ground that she was found residing at Jagannadhapuram Village at the time of notification and interview and since she is not a resident of Badapuram Village, she was removed from the post of Anganwadi worker.  Simultaneously, the appellant was appointed in the said post on 12.1.2010.  

Questioning the said order of removal, the 1^strespondent-writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 601 of 2010, which has since been allowed by the learned Single Judge primarily on the ground that when the appointing authority is the Committee, the matter of removal must necessarily go before the very authority.  The said order of the learned Single Judge is questioned in this appeal.

        It is not in dispute that the appointment of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner was in pursuance of the decision of the Committee constituted as per G.O. Ms. No. 28, dated 2.12.2004 referred to above.  In addition to that, a circular was issued by the Government as early as on 9.2.1995 to the effect that the appointment, removal, acceptance of resignation as well as the transfers of Anganwadi workers must be dealt with by the Committee referred to above.

 The learned Government Pleader submitted that the said G.O. and the Committee thereunder have since been revised under G.O. Ms. No.15, dated 4.4.2012.

However, the fact that a Committee is constituted for the purpose of appointment, removal, transfers etc., of the Anganwadi workers is not disputed even under the revised G.O. referred to above.  In that view of the matter, therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly held that when the appointment of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner was made by the Committee, the order of removal must also be considered by the said Committee and consequently, the removal order passed by the Project Director, under the impugned proceedings referred to above, was rightly held to be unsustainable on that aspect and in that view of the matter, the impugned order does not call for interference in this appeal. 

        Learned counsel for the appellant, however submits that there is unimpeachable evidence to show that the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner is not the resident of Badapuram Village and at the time of notification and interview, she was a resident of Jagannadhapuram Village.  It is also stated that after the writ petition was allowed under the impugned order, the appellant was removed and the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner was again reinstated and continued as Anganwadi worker.

Therefore, since the issue of eligibility of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner still remains to be decided by the competent authority, without interfering with the order impugned, we dispose of the writ appeal by further directing the District Collector, Ongole, Prakasam District, the 2^nd respondent herein, to place the representation of the appellant and the issue with regard to eligibility of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner before the Committee as constituted under G.O. Ms. No. 28, dated 2.12.2004 referred to above, and as duly revised under G.O. Ms. No.15, dated 4.4.2012 to enable the said Committee to consider the eligibility of the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner  to hold the said post of Anganwadi worker of Badapuram Village in accordance with law.  

We hope and trust that the said Committee will follow principles of natural justice and will give notice and afford opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the 1^st respondent-writ petitioner and shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  No costs.

N.V. RAMANA, ACJ

VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

15^th March, 2013

pnb