JUDGMENT : The 1st petitioner who was an Anganwadi Worker and the 2nd petitioner who is her daughter have filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the orders Exts.P5 and P11 by which the request for granting appointment to the 2nd petitioner as permanent Anganwadi Worker was rejected on the ground that the extent of land donated by the 1st petitioner was only two cents and that as per Ext.P6 order the extent of land required is 3 cents and only those who donated 3 cents of land/their dependant, for construction of Anganwadi, would be eligible to get employment in that category. 2. The petitioners pointed out that when they donated the land there was no prescription regarding the extent of land. According to the petitioners, land was surrendered in 1990 and the respondents got the Anganwadi building constructed in that land. It is also stated that the property was handed over to the respondents. It is stated that the Anganwadi started functioning in that building constructed in the land donated by the 1st petitioner from 04.10.1994. 3. The 1st petitioner retired from service while working in that Anganwadi, on 30.04.2018. Immediately on her retirement, she submitted Ext.P2 representation requesting to give appointment to the 2nd petitioner in the light of Ext.P1 order. The representation was considered on the basis of direction from this Court in Ext.P3 judgment in WP(C) No.14704/2018. The 2nd respondent rejected the representation as per Ext.P5 order in the light of Ext.P6 order. According to the petitioners Ext.P6 does not relate to the donation of land by Anganwadi Workers; but it only related to strangers. Therefore according to the petitioners the order Ext.P5 which is passed relying on Ext.P6 order is absolutely unsustainable. 4. Ext.P5 order was again challenged in WP(C) No.1369/2019 which was disposed of by Ext.P9 judgment permitting the petitioners to approach the Government with a representation and directing the Government to consider the same. The 1st petitioner thereafter approached the Government with Ext.P10 representation. It was rejected as per Ext.P11 order stating that the extent of land donated by the 1st petitioner is only two cents, whereas 3 cents of land is required for the proper functioning of an Anganwadi. At the same time it is admitted that the extent of land is not prescribed in Ext.P1 order. Government rejected the representation of petitioner on the very same ground. 5. At the same time it is admitted that the extent of land is not prescribed in Ext.P1 order. Government rejected the representation of petitioner on the very same ground. 5. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit reiterating their stand that donation of 3 cents of land is necessary for being eligible for appointment. Several other contentions are also raised stating that property is not yet mutated and it is still lying in the name of one Mr.Gopalakrishna Pillai and his wife Mrs.Mahilamani. 6. The petitioners have pointed out that the land was handed over as early as in 1990 and the Anganwadi started functioning in that building in the year 1994. According to the petitioners, it was for the respondents to take appropriate action for mutation. The petitioners also assured that if at all any action is required at their end, they would do it for the purpose of mutation. 7. At any rate it is seen that in Ext.P1 order no minimum extent was prescribed for the land. The 1st petitioner has handed over 2 cents of land when Ext.P1 order was in force. Nobody refuted the fact that the Anganwadi was constructed in that land on being satisfied of its sufficiency for construction of Anganwadi and without insisting for any further land. 1st petitioner has donated the land under the impression that her dependant would get employment. After accepting the land and after utilising the same for constructing the Anganwadi in the land given by the petitioners, the Government is not expected to revolt and deny the benefit of Ext.P1 order on the basis of subsequent order Ext.P6, fixing the extent of land, especially after enjoying that property for all these years from 1994 onwards. It is also pertinent to note that Ext.P6 order does not refer to Ext.P1 order or even the eligibility of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. Therefore Ext.P6 order cannot stand in the way of granting the benefit of Ext.P1 order. Hence I set aside Ext.P11 order and direct the respondents to reconsider the claim and to grant the benefit flowing from Ext.P1 treating that 2 cents of land donated by the 1st petitioner was sufficient for the dependant of the 1st petitioner to get employment. Therefore Ext.P6 order cannot stand in the way of granting the benefit of Ext.P1 order. Hence I set aside Ext.P11 order and direct the respondents to reconsider the claim and to grant the benefit flowing from Ext.P1 treating that 2 cents of land donated by the 1st petitioner was sufficient for the dependant of the 1st petitioner to get employment. On the basis of such donation respondents shall see that the 2nd petitioner is considered and granted appointment in the category of persons who donated/dependant of Anganwadi Workers who donated the land in accordance with the orders which prevailed on 01.05.2018. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.