Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 717 (AP)

P ANJULAMMA v. STATE OF AP

2021-10-29

NINALA JAYASURYA

body2021
ORDER: (Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (Virtual) mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of COVID-19 pandemic) 1. This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 16.07.2018 seeking promotion as Anganwadi Worker vide endorsement No.2018/F2 dated 20.07.2018, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of the petitioner’s rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the Memos dated 23.12.1998, 03.12.2010 and 05.01.2012 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as also violative of the law declared by this Court in W.P.No.31374 of 2015 and batch dated 16.11.2015. 2. The petitioner is working as Anganwadi Helper at Gotcheri Village, Guda Panchayat, Hukumpeta Project, Hukumpeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, pursuant to the proceedings dated 04.11.2015 issued by the 4th respondent. As a vacancy arose in respect of the post of Anganwadi Worker in the same center in the month of June, 2017, the petitioner has been discharging both the duties of Anganwadi Worker as well as Anganwadi Helper. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she is entitled for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the existing vacancy, as she is fully qualified and discharging the functions and also belongs to the same Anganwadi Center and of the same Village. Without considering the various Memos issued by the competent authority, the case of the petitioner was rejected. 3. Smt. B. Geetha, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia contends that the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner is wholly unsustainable and the same is contrary to the Memos issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 governing the field of appointments and promotions in respect of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers. She also contends that the issue with regard to the aspect of promotion of Anganwadi Helper to the post of Anganwadi Worker fell for consideration before this Court in W.P.No.31374 of 2015 and batch and the same were allowed by an order dated 16.11.2015. While drawing the attention of this Court to the Memos dated 23.12.1998, 03.12.2010 and 05.01.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner, in view of the said Memos as also in view of the expression of the learned Judge in the above referred batch of writ petitions, deserves to be considered. While drawing the attention of this Court to the Memos dated 23.12.1998, 03.12.2010 and 05.01.2012, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner, in view of the said Memos as also in view of the expression of the learned Judge in the above referred batch of writ petitions, deserves to be considered. She also submits that the petitioner has been discharging the functions of Anganwadi Helper and also Anganwadi Worker for the last three years and in such circumstances, the action of the 3rd respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker is not just or tenable. 4. Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that due to filing of a complaint by one Smt. S. Subbalakshmi before the Andhra Pradesh Human Rights Commission (APHRC) and also a writ petition in W.P.No.42327 of 2018, the case of the petitioner could not be considered. He also submits that the petitioner’s case would be considered, after receipt of appropriate orders in the writ petition instituted by said Smt. S. Subbalakshmi. 5. This Court has considered the arguments of both sides and perused the material on record. 6. It is not in dispute that there is a vacancy of Anganwadi Worker in Hukumpeta Project Center and the petitioner has been discharging the functions of Anganwadi Helper as also Anganwadi Worker. In one of the Memos dated 23.12.1998 issued by the 1st respondent, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance, the relevant portion provides thus: “5. Appointment of Anganwadi Helpers as Anganwadi Workers: The CDPOs are directed to see that performance (sic. preference) is given to the eligible Anganwadi Helpers in selection of Anganwadi Workers, if the CDPO satisfies the requirement of Anganwadi Worker. The Project Directors are directed to follow the above instructions scrupulously and see that no scope is given for any complaint in the above matters.” 7. In the subsequent Memo dated 03.12.2010, the Project Directors were again directed to fill up the vacancies of Anganwadi Workers with eligible Anganwadi Helpers and follow the Government Instructions issued in the reference dated 23.12.1998. The said instructions were further directed to be implemented vide Circular Memo dated 05.01.2012, which reads as follows: “Office of the Director of Women Development & Child Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Memo No.5771/K3/2006, Dt.05.01.2012. The said instructions were further directed to be implemented vide Circular Memo dated 05.01.2012, which reads as follows: “Office of the Director of Women Development & Child Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad Memo No.5771/K3/2006, Dt.05.01.2012. Sub:-WD&CW Dept., -ICDS – Appointments of AWWS from the Post of qualified AWHs-Clarification for appointment AWHs as AWWs – Certain clarifications issued – Reg. Ref:-1. Cir.Memo No.20888/K3/94, Dt.09.02.95 of Commissioner WD &CW Dept., Hyderabad. 2. Memo No.9207/ICDS/A1/98-1, Dt.23-12-98 of the Secretary to Government, WDCW & DW (ICDS) Department. 3. G.O.Rt.No.102 Dept., for Women, children, Disabled and Senior Citizens (ICDS A1) Dt.28.03.2011. 4. Lr.No.475/C/2011, Dt.20.06.2011 from PD DW&CDA, Nalgonda. **** The attention of Project Director, DW&CDA, Nalgonda District is drawn to the reference 1st cited, wherein certain instructions were issued. The AWW & AWH must be selected from the same villages where the AWC is located and should be a person acceptable to the community. This is the most important criteria which should not be violated. She must be married women whose family belongs to the community in the village. If the post of AWW is vacant, in the same village where AWH is qualified, she may be considered to be appointed as AWW provided she has fulfilled the conditions laid down in reference 3rd cited, with the approval of District Collector concerned. The qualified AWH is not eligible to be appointed as AWW even if she is willing to work anywhere in the concerned town, which is in violation of instructions issued vide reference 1st cited. Sd/-Anita Rajendra Director” 8. A conjoint reading of the said Circular Memo Instructions goes to show that if the post of Anganwadi Worker is vacant in the same village where Anganwadi Helper is appointed, she may be considered for appointment as Anganwadi Worker with the approval of the District Collector concerned, provided she possesses the requisite qualifications and fulfills the conditions. 9. In W.P.No.31374 of 2015 and batch, the learned Judge had considered the issues with regard to appointment/promotion of Anganwadi Workers at length. The challenge in the said cases is to a recruitment notification issued to fill up the posts of Anganwadi Workers in the respective villages where the petitioners therein were working as Anganwadi Helpers. It was inter alia contended that when there are eligible Anganwadi Helpers, there is no justification to resort to open market recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Workers. It was inter alia contended that when there are eligible Anganwadi Helpers, there is no justification to resort to open market recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Workers. The learned Judge, at paras 10 and 11, held as follows: “10. As noticed above, in the instant case, there are only three instructions of the State Government governing appointment of Anganwadi Workers. These three instructions, more particularly, the last of the instructions, dated 05.01.2012, clearly point out that an Anganwadi Helper of a village is entitled to be considered for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the same village and no further restriction is imposed. Thus, the restrictions as imposed in Himachal Pradesh, i.e., consideration of an Anganwadi Helper of the same Anganwadi Center is not imposed in the State of Andhra Pradesh. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above decision has no application in view of the specific instructions issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh. 11. As clarified by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, insofar as recruitment to the post of Anganwadi helpers and Anganwadi Workers are concerned, though the scheme is evolved by the Government of India and the financial burden is shared by the Central government and the State Governments in the ratio of 75:25, the recruitment policy is left to be decided by the respective States. Thus, insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, as evident from the three circulars relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the restriction is only residency in the concerned village and not the feeder areas of the respective Anganwadi Centres within the village, Thus, as long as eligible Anganwadi helpers were available in a village, there is no justification in resorting to the open market recruitment to fill up the vacancies of Anganwadi Workers in the respective villages. Said decision is contrary to the orders of the Government on the subject.” 10. The learned Judge in the ultimate analysis of the matter, allowed the batch of writ petitions and directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment/promotion as Anganwadi Workers in the respective villages, subject to their eligibility and suitability in the existing vacancies of the respective villages. The said judgment, in the opinion of this Court, applies to the case on hand. 11. The said judgment, in the opinion of this Court, applies to the case on hand. 11. Though it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that in view of the complaint before the APHRC and also the writ petition filed by one Smt. S. Subbalakshmi, the case of the petitioner was rejected, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, in the absence of any order in favour of said S. Subbalakshmi. Except mentioning the said reason, no material is placed before this Court, by virtue of which, the respondents are restrained from considering the case of the petitioner. 12. When there is no dispute with regard to the vacancy in respect of Anganwadi Worker in the same center in which the petitioner is discharging the functions of Anganwadi Helper and with regard to her qualifications and eligibility, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the case of the petitioner. In view of the Circular Memos referred to above and also the judgment of the learned Judge in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned endorsement of the 3rd respondent dated 20.07.2018. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in Gotcheri Village, Guda Panchayat, Hukumpeta Project, Hukumpeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, subject to her fulfilling the requisite educational qualifications, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. 14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand disposed of.