Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1816 (ALL)

SHEELA DEVI v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-05-28

A.K.ROOPANWAL, PANKAJ MITHAL, S.K.SINGH

body2010
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Mr. K.P. Agarwal, Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Sumati Rani, Sri S. Pratap Singh, another learned counsel who appeared in one of the two appeals for the appellants/petitioners and Sri M.C. Chatruvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Dr. Y.K. Srivastava for State of U.P. 2. Both the appellants/petitioners in Special Appeal No. 1121 of 2005 were appointed as Anganwadi workers on 22.2.2003 and 18.2.2003 respectively. Their services were dispensed with by Child Development Project Officer(CDPO) vide order dated 13.7.2005 without conducting any inquiry or affording opportunity of hearing on the ground that on surprise inspection held on 8.7.2005 the centre was found closed. The writ petition No. 55833 of 2005 filed by the appellants/petitioners challenging the above order of termination was dismissed by the learned Single Judge following the Division Bench Judgement of the Court in the case of Smt. Sunaina Singh v. District Magistrate and another, 2003 (4) ESC 2039 as Anganwadi Worker is not a holder of a civil post and as such has no right to challenge the termination by way of a writ petition. 3. The Division Bench hearing the special appeal so preferred against the dismissal of the writ petition, finding it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Smt. Sunaina Singh (Supra) has referred the following question of law for consideration by the larger Bench : “Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable by AnganBari Karyakarti who is appointed on temporary basis by the Child Development and Social Welfare Department of the State and is paid only honorarium.” 4. Similar is the position in Special Appeal No. 1210 of 2005, Smt. Sanju Devi and others v. State of U.P. and others and as such it has also been tagged with the present appeal. 5. In attempting to answer the above question referred it would be profitable to have a birds eye view of the Anganwadi system as is prevalent. 6. Government of India in order to secure social order for the promotion of welfare of people implemented Integrated Child Development Service (in short ICDS) programme on 2nd October 1975 for child care and welfare. The said programme is run under the auspicious of the Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India. The World Bank has also joined the programme and is making substantial financial contribution. 7. The said programme is run under the auspicious of the Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India. The World Bank has also joined the programme and is making substantial financial contribution. 7. The administrative structure of the programme is as follows: Ministry of Human Resource Development Government of India / Department of Women and Child Development Government of India / Department of women and Child Development Government of U.P. / Directorate of Child Development / District Programme Officer(DPO) / Child Development project officer (CDPO) at the project level / Supervisor at the sector level / Anganwadi worker and helper at the village level 8. Anganwadi meaning Courtyard shelter is a Government sponsored scheme under the ICDS programme which renders child care services particularly to children upto the age of 6 years. 9. Anganwadi centres, at the grass root level, extends the benefits of the scheme. There are estimated 1.053 million Anganwadi centres in the country. Each centre is managed by an Anganwadi worker (karyakarti) appointed after 4 months of training in health nutrition and child care, and Anganwadi Sahayikas (helpers). Single Anganwadi worker covers a population of 1,000 persons. A supervisor called ‘Mukhya Sevika’ supervises the working of 20 to 25 Anganwadi workers. CDPO controls the working of four ‘Mukhya Sevikas’. 10. Anganwadi centres in the country employ 1.8 million mostly female workers and helpers. According to the Government figures, they provide coverage to over 58 million children and over 10 million pregnant and lactating women belonging to poor families by providing facilities of immunization, health, food, clean water, hygienic toilets, proper environment for infants, toddlers and pre-schools and learning. 11. At the beginning of the Scheme in 1975, the Anganwadi Worker was paid honorarium of Rs.100/- per month (Non-Matriculate) and Rs.150/- per month (Matriculate) and Helper Rs.35/- per month. It was gradually increased and the honorarium of Anganwadi worker was placed in the range of Rs. 938/- to 1063/- per month depending upon their educational qualifications and experience whereas the honorarium of the helpers increased to Rs. 500/- per month. The Government of India enhanced the above honorarium w.e.f. 1.4.2008 by Rs. 500/- to Anganwadi workers and Rs. 250/- to the Anganwadi helpers. 12. Govt. 938/- to 1063/- per month depending upon their educational qualifications and experience whereas the honorarium of the helpers increased to Rs. 500/- per month. The Government of India enhanced the above honorarium w.e.f. 1.4.2008 by Rs. 500/- to Anganwadi workers and Rs. 250/- to the Anganwadi helpers. 12. Govt. has increased their honorarium from time to time, as indicated below: Qualification/Year 1975-76 1.4.78 1.7.86 2.10.92 16.5.97 1.04.02 1.04.08 Non-Matriculate 100 125 225 350 438 938 1438 Matriculate 150 175 275 400 500 1000 1500 Non-Matriculate - - 250 375 469 969 1469 With 5 year exp Matriculate - - 300 425 531 1031 1531 With 5 year exp Non-Matriculate - - 275 400 500 1000 1500 With 10 year exp Matriculate - - 325 450 563 1063 1563 With 10 year exp Mini-Anganwadi - - - - - 500 750 Workers (w.ef. 1.1.2007) Helper 35 50 110 200 260 500 750 13. Apart from the honorarium certain monetary incentives are separately provided by the respective State Governments from their own resources. They have also been allowed paid absence of 135 days of maternity leave. 14. The Govt. of India introduced ‘Anganwadi Karyakarti Bima Yojana’ to Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers w.e.f.1.4.2004 under Life Insurance Corporation’s Social Security Scheme. The amount of premium of Rs. 80/- payable by AWWs and AWHs has also been waived of w.e.f. 1.4.2007 for a period of two years. Scholarship to two children per family is available for the children of the members who are covered by the above insurance scheme to the extent of of Rs.300/- per quarter for students of 9th to 12th standard [including ITI courses]. In order to motivate the Anganwadi Workers and give recognition to good voluntary work, a Scheme of Award for Anganwadi Workers has been introduced, both at the National and State Level. The Award comprises Rs.25,000/- cash and a Citation at Central level and Rs.5000/- cash and a Citation at State level. Government has also made a provision for a Uniform (saree/suit @ Rs. 200/- per saree per annum) and a name badge to Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. 15. The State of U.P. issued two Government Orders dated 16th December 2003 and 23rd May 2007 for the purposes of appointment of Anganwadi workers/helpers providing therein necessary qualifications and the procedure for selection etc. 200/- per saree per annum) and a name badge to Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. 15. The State of U.P. issued two Government Orders dated 16th December 2003 and 23rd May 2007 for the purposes of appointment of Anganwadi workers/helpers providing therein necessary qualifications and the procedure for selection etc. The aforesaid Government Orders provide a minimum of High School for appointment of Anganwadi workers and a minimum of class V pass for appointment of Anganwadi helpers with preference to those who have passed class VIII. Any higher qualification above Intermediate is not to be given any weightage. The age of recruitment of Anganwadi workers and helpers is between 21 to 45 years which was earlier a minimum of 18 years. The applications for appointment of Anganwadi workers and helpers are required to be submitted to the CDPO or the DPO either through Gram Pradhan or any member of the Regional Panchayat Samiti. The Selection Committee consisting of 6 members includes CDPO and the nominee of Block Development Officer amongst others. The selection committee awards points to the applicants on the basis of the division secured by them in the High School and Intermediate by awarding 3,2 and 1 points for I, II and III division respectively. On the basis of the points so secured by each candidate merit list is prepared and appointments are made according to the said merit. If two candidates secure equal points appointment has to be made on the basis of seniority by age. In making appointment preference has to be given first to the widow of the village concerned, then to a divorcee, then to a women below poverty line and thereafter any other candidate. It is also provided that on completion of 60 years of age the work of the Anganwadi workers/helpers shall be evaluated and if they are not found to be physically fit and suitable their services would be dispensed with after giving a show cause notice. In short, the aforesaid Government Orders contemplate appointment of Anganwadi workers/helpers, though on temporary basis but for unlimited period atleast till attainment of 60 years of age provided the project itself is not abandoned in between. In the case of abandonment of project the services of Anganwadi workers/helpers are liable to be terminated with immediate effect. In short, the aforesaid Government Orders contemplate appointment of Anganwadi workers/helpers, though on temporary basis but for unlimited period atleast till attainment of 60 years of age provided the project itself is not abandoned in between. In the case of abandonment of project the services of Anganwadi workers/helpers are liable to be terminated with immediate effect. It is informed that under the letter of the Ministry of Women and Child Development Government of India dated 20th July 2006 in addition to the existing posts of 5252 Anganwadi workers and helpers each additional posts of 7918 Anganwadi workers and helpers each have been sanctioned temporarily. The posts once sanctioned are ordinarily continuing ever since the implementation of the ICDS in the year 1975. 16. Medical Officers, Auxillary Nurse Midwife (ANM) and Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA) also form part of the team to fulfil the aims and objects of the ICDS. 17. It is in the aforesaid factual matrix that we have to examine the question of maintainability of the writ petitions which were for issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the orders of termination passed by the CDPO who is a Government functionary, in exercise of powers vested in him by the above referred Government orders/circulars relating to the scheme. 18. “King must be under God and Law” said Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of the King’s Bench in England. Thus, originated the concept that no one is above Law or Law is Supreme. Crown role, in the modern day society is played by the Government. Therefore, those who govern or through whom the administration of the Government is carried out all are governed by Rule of law. 19. In a society which is governed by Rule of Law, administrative law plays an important role. Administrative law is a branch of law relating to the administration which deals with the composition of powers, duties, rights and liabilities of the various organs of the Government vis-a-vis the Government and the citizens. 19. In a society which is governed by Rule of Law, administrative law plays an important role. Administrative law is a branch of law relating to the administration which deals with the composition of powers, duties, rights and liabilities of the various organs of the Government vis-a-vis the Government and the citizens. Earlier, the functions of the Government were limited and they were confined basically to the welfare of the people, development of the nation and collection of revenue but with the ever growing socio-economic functions as the Government started venturing into business like any other private person and undertaking public utility services, more often on contractual basis according to its policies, a need was felt to ensure that the activities of the Government are carried out in accordance with the law and the laws are implemented or administered in a fair and reasonable manner. Administrative law as such is a by-product of the growing socio-economic functions of the State and has become an integral part of the developed society. Since, the administrative law is based on the principle that Government actions must be legal, a remedy by way of judicial review of administrative action has been provided under the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as Constitution). 20. Judicial review of administrative action forms the basic structure of the Constitution. Public Law remedy by way of judicial review is available under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution but both these articles operate in different fields. Article 226 operates on a broader horizon and while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution Courts have to act with great circumspection only to correct the error of the law resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice or procedural error, if any. 21. Article 226 of the Constitution confers upon the High Court the power to issue writs in the nature of habeas corpus, prohibition, quo-warranto and certiorari or any of them for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights and for any other purpose to any person, or authority including in appropriate cases, any Government within the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. Thus, it is seen that writ of the natures prescribed above can be issued to any person or authority or even the Government i.e. State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution which covers all legal or other authorities discharging functions of public nature. 22. In Tika Ram v. Mundikota Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, AIR 1984 SC 1621 , the petitioner was working as Head Master in a private school. Pursuant to the departmental enquiry instituted by the Management, he was reverted to the post of Assistant Teacher. The appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Deputy Director of Education and reversion order was set aside. Further appeal of the Management was dismissed by the Director of Education. But again, the review petition was filed which was allowed and the order passed by the Deputy Director was set aside. Against the order passed by the Director, the petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Bombay contending that the Director had no power to review the earlier order. The High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that the teachers working in the private schools could not enforce the rights under the Grant-in-Aid Code, which were non statutory in nature. The petitioner approached the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal and granting the relief in favour of the teacher, the Court observed : “In the instant case the appellant is seeking a relief not against a private body but against an officer of Government who is always amenable to the jurisdiction of the Court. The appellant has merely sought the quashing of the impugned order dated November 26,1976 passed by the Director on review setting aside the order of the Deputy Director. What consequences follow from the quashing of the above said order in so far as the Management is concerned is an entirely different issue.....[S]ince this petition is principally directed against the order passed in a quasi-judicial proceeding by the Director, though in a case arising under the school Code and since the Director had assumed a jurisdiction to review his own orders not conferred on him, we hold that the appellant was entitled to maintain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.” 23. A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Francis John v. Director of Education, AIR 1990 SC 423 . A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Francis John v. Director of Education, AIR 1990 SC 423 . In that case also, the petitioner was serving as Head Master in a private school. His services were terminated by the Principal and Director of Education approved the said order. A petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court of Bombay was dismissed by the Court as not maintainable. Allowing the appeal filed by the teacher against the judgment of the High Court, the Apex Court observed : “Any private school which receives aid from the Government under the Grant-in-aid Code, which is promulgated not merely for the benefit of the Management but also for the benefit of the employees in the school for whose salary and allowances the Government was contributing from the public funds under the Grant-in-aid Code cannot escape from the consequences flowing from the breach of the code and particularly where the Director of Education who is an instrumentality of the State is participating in the decision making process.” 24. The Apex Court has constantly held that writ can also be issued against a person only when he is conferred with some public duty to perform. In AIR 1989 SC 1607 , Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Suvarna Jayanti Mahotsav Smarak Trust and others v. VR.Rudani and others, the Supreme Court explaining the meaning of the word ‘person’ as used under Article 226 of the Constitution held that the writ jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Courts against a person if he is performing any public duty. 25. A seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court after considering in detail the various terms namely; State Instrumentality, State Agency, Quasi Governmental Agency, and Authority in context with Article 12 of the Constitution of India vis-avis Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of Pradeep Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others, 2002 (5) SCC 111 , held that a writ may lie if the order has been passed by the statutory authority or where the respondent was involved in performance of public duty. 26. The above decisions of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates that the ambit and scope of Article 226 has been liberalised, widened and expanded by the Courts. 26. The above decisions of the Supreme Court clearly demonstrates that the ambit and scope of Article 226 has been liberalised, widened and expanded by the Courts. A petition is maintainable if the petitioner seeks relief in accordance with law and his real grievance is against the action or an order passed by a statutory authority or an authority vested with performance of public functions. In short a writ petition would always be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution against an order passed by any person in discharge of public duty or by public authority i.e., an officer of the Government. 27. Having considered the person or the authority against whom a writ would lie as above, we move to the second aspect regarding the locus of the petitioners to maintain the writ petition. 28. Lord Denning in one of his books The Discipline of law* has rightly said “In administrative law the question of locus standi is the most vexed question of all.” 29. Legally speaking locus standi means a right of appearance in the Court of justice or a right to be heard before a Court of law. If a person has no locus standi, he cannot be heard on merits. A person who has genuine grievance on account of action which affects him prejudicially is ordinarily considered to be eligible to approach the Court. It is a right to judicial redress of one’s grievance. Therefore, only a person who suffers a legal injury whose legal rights have been violated or who has been wronged by the action of the State or any public authority is generally considered entitle to invoke writ jurisdiction except in cases of Public Interest Litigation, issuance of writ of habeas corpus or quo-warranto. Normally, a person aggrieved is one against whom a decision has been pronounced wrongly depriving him of something or adversely affecting his right over something but it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. 30. In Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and others, (2002) 1 SCC 33 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering a similar issue observed as under : “There is no dispute regarding legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court the aforesaid article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the Court has undergone a sea change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional Courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-technical grounds.” 31. In the instant case appellants/petitioners have invoked writ jurisdiction challenging the orders of their termination as Anganwadi workers passed by the CDPO who undoubtedly is a Government functionary discharging public duty. Admittedly, he falls within the definition of ‘State’ to whom a writ can always be issued. The orders impugned in the writ petitions unmistakably visit appellants/petitioners with civil consequences as they disrupt their right to livelihood. Therefore, they are certainly the ‘persons aggrieved’ having a right to seek judicial review of the order and to seek a declaration that such an order is invalid on the grounds permissible under law. 32. Learned Chief Standing counsel has opposed the issuance of any writ and has justified the order of dismissal of the writ petition as not maintainable on the ground that Anganwadi workers have no lien to any post and since they do not hold any civil post they are not entitle to maintain the writ petition. 33. The sheet anchor of the argument of the learned Chief Standing Counsel apart from the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sunaina Singh (Supra) is based upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and others v. Amirbi and others, (2007) 11 SCC 681 , wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court categorically ruled that Anganwadi workers do not hold any civil post. 34. In the above case some of the Anganwadi workers had filed applications under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal wherein the Tribunal initially held that the application was not maintainable but on reference to Larger Bench the application was held to be maintainable. 34. In the above case some of the Anganwadi workers had filed applications under Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act, 1985 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal wherein the Tribunal initially held that the application was not maintainable but on reference to Larger Bench the application was held to be maintainable. Thus, the matter relating to the maintainability of the application by Anganwadi workers before the Tribunal travelled to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court finally held that the application of Anganwadi workers was not maintainable before the Tribunal as they are not holders of any civil post. 35. The issue whether the Anganwadi worker is entitle to invoke the writ jurisdiction against the order of his termination passed by the Government functionary was not under consideration before the Supreme Court. 36. It is well acknowledged principle of law that any order or judgment of superior Court or of a Larger Bench has a binding precedent only with regard to the principle of law laid-down therein that is to say it is only the ratio decidendi of the case which has the binding effect. 37. An issue which has not been considered by the Court while delivering the order/judgment, cannot be said to be a binding precedent. 38. A Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in Union of India v. Chajju Ram, AIR 2003 SC 2339 , held : “It is now well settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deducted therefrom.” 39. In the above case of Amirbi (Supra), the Apex Court has only decided that Anganwadi workers are not the holders of the civil posts and therefore their application before the Administrative tribunal is not maintainable. There is no adjudication as to whether they are entitle to invoke the writ jurisdiction against the order of their termination or as a matter of fact against any order passed adversely against them by the Government Officer. Therefore, we do not consider the aforesaid authority to be of any help to the respondents in answering the question referred. 40. There is no adjudication as to whether they are entitle to invoke the writ jurisdiction against the order of their termination or as a matter of fact against any order passed adversely against them by the Government Officer. Therefore, we do not consider the aforesaid authority to be of any help to the respondents in answering the question referred. 40. A feeble attempt has also made by the learned Chief Standing Counsel to defend the impugned orders on the ground that contract of personal service between a master and servant cannot be enforced under law on the basis of the decision in the case of Executive Committee of Vaish Decree College, Shamali and others v. Lakshmi Narain and others, 1976 (2) SCC 58 . 41. We are not at all impressed by the submission as that was a case arising from a civil suit and it was in that context that it was held that a right of such a nature cannot be enforced through Court subject to three well established exceptions. The petitioners/appellants herein are not actually seeking enforcement of any such relationship of master and servant but are claiming that the orders terminating their services are null and void being in violation of the principles of natural justice. Such a claim has also been saved from the clutches of the enforcement of the contract of service in the above very authority of the Supreme Court itself. 42. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid decision also in no way strengthens the defence of the respondents. 43. The maintainability of the writ petition is dependent upon the cause of action which undoubtedly has arisen with the passing of the orders of termination by the CDPO whose decision can certainly be subjected to judicial review. 44. The issue is not as to whether the appellants/petitioners would succeed in the writ petitions and get the desired relief but is altogether different as to whether the petition is maintainable or the appellants/petitioners are entitle to invoke the writ jurisdiction. In our opinion in view of the above discussion such a writ petition is maintainable and the appellants/petitioners are justified in invoking the extraordinary remedy on the grounds permissible for judicial review, though it may ultimately result in dismissal on merits. 45. In our opinion in view of the above discussion such a writ petition is maintainable and the appellants/petitioners are justified in invoking the extraordinary remedy on the grounds permissible for judicial review, though it may ultimately result in dismissal on merits. 45. In Pratap Singh Keron v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 , the Supreme Court observed as under : “The Rule of law and Article 226 is designed to ensure that each and every authority in the State including Government of India acts bonafide and within the limits of its power and we consider that when the Court is satisfied that there is an abuse and misuse of power and its jurisdiction is invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to afford justice to the individual.” 46. In the case of U.P. State Co-operative Bank Limited v. Chandra Bhan Dubey, (1999) 1 SCC 741 , the Supreme Court has laid down the following Proposition : “............The Constitution is not a statute. It is a fountain head of all statutes. When the language of Article 226 is clear, we cannot put shackles on the High Courts to limit their jurisdiction by putting an interpretation on the words which would limit their jurisdiction. When any citizen or person is wronged, the High Court will step in to protect him, be that wrong be done by the State, an instrumentality of the State, a company or a co-operative society or association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, or even an individual. Right that is infringed may be under part III of the Constitution or any other right which the law validly made might confer upon him” 47. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the orders passed by the CDPO who is a public servant cannot escape judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and therefore a writ against such an order would lie at the behest of the person aggrieved irrespective of the nature of his service. 48. Under the Serva Shiksha Abhiyan appointments of ‘Shiksha Mitras’ i.e., teachers of primary schools being made under a Government scheme on honorarium basis in virtually similar circumstances. 48. Under the Serva Shiksha Abhiyan appointments of ‘Shiksha Mitras’ i.e., teachers of primary schools being made under a Government scheme on honorarium basis in virtually similar circumstances. In connection with termination of one such appointment, the writ petition challenging the same was dismissed as not maintainable in view of the fact that the appointment was contractual in nature and was not against any post. On Special Appeal, the order dismissing the writ petition was set aside by the Division Bench and it was held that as the writ petition is directed against action/order of the Government officer, as public authority, it is maintainable. The Division Bench of this Court in the said case of Meena Srivastava v. State of U.P., 2007 (1) ESMC 552, held as under : “In the facts of the present case writ petition has been filed against an action of a Government Officer, who is public authority. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against a public authority. The public authorities, who are State authorities and instrumentalities are not to act arbitrarily, irrationally or unreasonably. Any action of public authority can always be impugned in the writ petition and it cannot be said that the writ petition is not maintainable in such case.” 49. Similar is the position in relation to cancellation of license to run fair price shop under the public distribution system wherein also it has been held vide Division Bench decision of this Court in 2000 (1) AWC 1 , Pappu v. State of U.P. and others, that the order of cancellation subject to appeal is ultimately amenable to writ jurisdiction as statutory authority cannot claim immunity from judicial review in respect of its functions vis-a-vis public distribution system. 50. Another Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the promotion of Anganwadi workers in special appeal arising from the dismissal of a writ petition again on the ground that it was not maintainable vide Ram Devi v. Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Pustahar, U.P., Lucknow, 2006 (1) ESC 466 (All), held the writ petition to be maintainable as the order denying permission under challenge was passed by the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Pustahar U.P., Lucknow. 51. 51. Thus, it would be clear that in the State of U.P. a consistent and unbroken judicial flora has been nurturing that actions and the orders of public officers are amenable to judicial review even if they may be arising out of a contract or any scheme of the Government and therefore the writ petition cannot be thrown out simply on the technical ground it is not maintainable. In view of such a legal situation prevailing, on the application of principle of stare decises also, we are not inclined to take a different view in the matter. 52. Sri Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate had laid much stress upon various other aspects to the effect that Government has no authority to make any appointment on contractual basis; such contract appointments are in conflict with The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act,1970; all employees appointed by the Government whether contractual, temporary or permanent are civil servants; and security of employment falls within the Fundamental Right to life and liberty. However, we do not consider it necessary to dwell upon all these issues in view of the discussion made above which reduces them to academic in nature for the purposes of this reference. 53. Sri Singh, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has also made an attempt to assail the impugned termination orders on variety of grounds interalia that they have been passed in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and against a doctrine of fair play as no procedure was followed which in fact was necessary, as the appointments were made following a set prescribed procedure. We refrain ourselves from commenting upon any of the above aspects, lest it may affect or prejudice the decision on merits of the writ petition. 54. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we answer the question referred to us in favour of the appellants/petitioners and hold that the Anganwadi workers though appointed under a scheme of the Government notwithstanding that they are not holders of civil posts are entitle to invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order terminating their services passed by the CDPO, a Government functionary on grounds permissible for judicial review. 55. We accordingly direct that the matter be placed before the appropriate Division Bench hearing the Special Appeals to decide the same in the light of the answer given by us above. ————