Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1238 (HP)

Priti Devi v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-07-06

CHANDER BHUSAN BAROWALIA, TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The petitioners (three in number) have filed the instant writ petition for the grant of following substantive reliefs: (i) That the impugned acts and orders of the respondents filling up the vacancy of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Mahog, Karsog, Mandi, H.P. by transfer/ adjustment of the private respondent from Anganwari Centre, Bhandal, Karsog, Mandi, H.P. may kindly be declared illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary, malafide contrary to the notification dated 20.02.2016 and in violation of the principles of natural justice and legitimate expectation. (ii) That the posting of the private respondent Smt. Shyama Kumari as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Mahog, Tehsil Karsog, Mandi, H.P. by transfer/adjustment from Anganwari Centre, Bhandal, Tehsil Karsog, Mandi, H.P. may kindly be quashed and setaside and the respondents may kindly be directed to send back the private respondent to Anganwari Centre, Bhandal, Tehsil Karsog, Mandi, H.P. (iii) That the respondent may kindly be directed to initiate the process for filling up the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Mahog, Tehsil Karsog, Mandi, H.P. at the earliest in accordance with law, rule and policy." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Anganwari Worker posted at Anganwari Centre, Mahog, Karsog, Mandi, H.P. retired from service in the year 2017, consequently such post fell vacant. Thereafter, the respondent No.5 was temporarily deputed/posted at the said Centre by the official respondents. The petitioners thereafter claim to have learnt that respondent No.5 was being permanently adjusted at the aforesaid Centre and, therefore, filed a representation to the respondents and requested them not to fill up the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Mahog. However, such representation was turned down by the official respondents and the petitioners were informed that the post in question has been filled up by way of adjustment of respondent No.5, who otherwise had been appointed as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Bhandal, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. 3. It is strongly urged by Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioners that the transfer/ adjustment of private respondent No.5 from Anganwari Centre, Bhandal, Karsog, Mandi and not conducting the fresh selection process for the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Mahog, Karsog, Mandi, is unjust, illegal, malafide, arbitrary, against all cannons of law, principles of natural justice and in violation to the notification dated 29.02.2016. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 4. At the outset, it may be observed that merely because the petitioners are eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Mahog, they cannot claim any absolute right of consideration especially in absence of any plea of legitimate expectation. 5. Now, in case the notification dated 29.02.2016 upon which the reliance has strongly been placed by the petitioners to contend that such transfer/adjustment of the instant kind are clearly prohibited under this notification, it would be necessary to setout the relevant portion of the notification, which reads thus: "4. Transfer/Adjustment of the Anganwadi Workers/ Helpers. Under ICDS programme there is no provision of transfer of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers as these are honorary workers. However, only in case of marriage of AWW or AWH, some adjustments can be done as follows, a vacancy exists arises at the place of her husband''s normal place of residence/place of marriage or within the Panchayat area concerned, she can be adjusted on her request made within one month from date of vacancy arising or date marriage as the case may be. Divorce/destitute women living with their parents in Anganwadi area, but working at the place of marriage can be transferred to the place of Anganwadi falling in the parental area or within the Panchayat area in a similar manner subject to the availability of vacancy. Distt. Programme Officer will be the competent authority to order transfer/adjustment of Anganwadi Worker/Helpers within the District. Outside district transfers will be done with the approval of Director, WCD." 6. Relying upon the aforesaid provision, it is vehemently contended by Mr. Lalit Kumar Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no provision of transfer of Anganwari Workers/Helpers as these are honorary workers and only explanation to the same is that in case of marriage of these Workers/Helpers, some adjustments can be done in the following manner: (i) Where a vacancy exists or arises at the place of her husband''s normal place of residence or place of marriage or within the Panchayat area concerned, she can be adjusted on her request made within one month from the date of vacancy arising or date of marriage as the case may be. (ii) Divorce/destitute women living with their parents in Anganwadi area, but working at the place of marriage can be transferred to the place of Anganwadi falling in the parental area or within the Panchayat area in a similar manner subject to the availability of vacancy. 7. We are really at a complete loss as to how the petitioners can take advantage of the aforesaid conditions and claim that there is no provision in the aforesaid Clause. The language incorporated in Clause 4 as reproduced above, has to be interpreted in a meaningful and porposive manner. 8. Noticeably, the contention of the petitioners is that since respondent No.5 is a widow, therefore, she cannot be posted in the Panchayat area of her late husband. This contention is absolutely fallacious because the notification clearly provides for adjustment of Anganwari Worker or Anganwari Helper not only at the normal place of residence or place of marriage of her husband but also within the concerned Panchayat area. 9. It is not in dispute that the Anganwari Centre at Mahog falls within the concerned Panchayat area and, therefore, no exception to the appointment of respondent No.5 at Anganwari Centre, Mahog can be taken by the petitioners. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would then contend that since the husband of the respondent No.5 has died, she cannot be adjusted in the aforesaid area as it is only the divorced/destitute women, who can be adjusted, that too, to the place of Anganwari falling in the parental area or within the Panchayat area. This contention is equally fallacious and is rather absurd, merely because the petitioner No.1 is an unfortunate widow and her legal ties with the husband''s family do not get severed. The mere fact that her husband is no longer alive, has no effect on her status for claiming herself to be the widow of the deceased at east till the time she does not remarry, whereafter consequences as per law follow. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.