HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No. : 422 of 2007. With CWP No.: 634 of 2007. Decided on: 2.12.2009. CWP No.422 of 2007: Babli Devi ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ………Respondents. CWP No.634 of 2007: Reena ……… Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others ………Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the petitioner (in CWP No.422 of 2007): Mr.R.R. Rahi, Advocate. For the petitioner (in CWP No.634 of 2007): Mr.Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Deputy (in both the petitions) Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral): Both the petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as identical questions of law and fact arise in these petitions. The undisputed facts are that Smt.Babli Devi, petitioner in CWP No.422 of 2007, was appointed as Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Gawai, ___________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. She married one Shri Shyam Singh, resident of Village Dhar, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla. It is not disputed that under the Anganwari Scheme, there is no provision for transfer of Anganwari Workers or Helpers from one Anganwari Centre to another. However, to obviate the difficulties of the female employees, an administrative order was issued that in case an Anganwari Worker or Helper gets married and there is a vacant post in the Anganwari Center covering her marital home, then such Worker/Helper can be adjusted at the Anganwari Centre covering her marital place. The petitioner Babli Devi appears to have applied for being adjusted at Anganwari Center Baithadi on the ground that this Centre covers the residents of village Dhar. She was posted there and order of posting was issued in her favor on 4.11.2006. Thereafter, on 7.11.2006, another order was issued canceling the earlier order and she was directed to join at her old Anganwari Centre. The petitioner Babli Devi challenged this order by means of filing writ petition No.422 of 2007. CWP No.634 of 2007 has been filed by one Reena, who is a resident of the area falling under the Anganwari Centre, Baithadi and according to her, Babli Devi could not be transferred to Baithadi and this post must be filled in after following the recruitment process laid down in the Anganwari Scheme. When these matters came up for hearing before us on 13.10.2008, we had passed the following order: “We have heard both the petitions. To decide the dispute, it would be necessary to find out whether Village Dhar, to which village the husband of the petitioner Babli Devi belongs, is - 3 - one of the feeding villages for Anganwari Centre Bethari. Respondent No.3 is directed to file an affidavit clearly stating as to which Anganwari Centre the children of village Dhar are sent. This affidavit be filed within three weeks. List the matter on 5th November, 2008.” Pursuant to our order, respondent No.3 filed an affidavit stating therein that there is a separate Anganwari Centre at Village Dhar and Anganwari Centre, Baithadi does not cater to the people of Village Dhar. Thereafter, the matter was listed before us on 5.11.2008, on which date the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to Annexure PH filed with the rejoinder. This is a copy of a form purporting to be part of the survey register in which the names of the family members of the petitioner were shown as falling within the area covered by the Anganwari Centre, Baithadi. We, therefore, directed the Assistant Child Development Project Officer to file a fresh affidavit with respect to this allegation also. This affidavit has now been filed, para 4 of which reads as follows: “That it has transpired from the record that petitioner has deliberately and intentionally kept her house in Anganwari Centre Bathari, which was filed up by her so as to remain in Anganwari Centre Bathari. The survey register of Anganwari Centre Bathari which maintained by the Anganwari Worker is shows that the petitioner has kept her family in Anganwari Centre Bathari alongwith the resident of the Bathari whereas the attendance of the children attending Anganwari Centre Bathari shows that no children of Village Dhar are attending Anganwari Centre Bathari. It is submitted her that since 1st October, 2007 onward, no children of village Dhar are attending Anganwari Centre Bathari till date and all the children of village Dhar are attending Anganwari Centre Dhar only. - 4 - As per the original survey of the Anganwari Centre, Dhar, the family of the petitioner basically covered under this Centre and it is further submitted that all the beneficiaries of Dhar village as well as all the neighbourers of the petitioner are being covered by the Anganwari Centre Dhar. Since the beneficiaries of Dhar village are being covered by the Anganwari Centre, Dhar, the question of the children of the house of the petitioner are required to attend the Anganwari Centre, Bathari does not arise.” From the averments made in the affidavit quoted hereinabove, it is apparent that according to the deponent, the survey register has been maintained by the petitioner Babli Devi herself and she has, in the survey register, wrongly entered the name of her family members as falling within the Anganwari Centre Baithadi, whereas they should be in Anganwari Centre, Dhar. On a careful perusal of Annexure PH, we find that it does not bear the signatures of any official. It is apparent that the petitioner Babli Devi has created this document with a view to support her claim. It is not the petitioner who is to decide this issue, but the respondent State which is to decide as to which area falls under which Anganwari Centre. According to the respondents, all the residents of village Dhar are covered by the Anganwari Centre, Dhar and they have no concern with the Anganwari Centre, Baithadi. Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner Babli Devi to Anganwari Centre, Baithadi was not justified since her husband does not belong to the area covered by Baithadi Anganwari Centre. Consequently, the writ petition bearing No.422 of 2007 filed by the petitioner Babli Devi is dismissed. The interim order granted in favour of the petitioner Babli Devi is vacated. - 5 - We further direct that the post of Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Baithadi shall be filled after following the process as laid down in the Anganwari Scheme. This be done within a period of four months from today. The writ petition No.634 of 2007 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. In view of the final disposal of the main petitions, all the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in both the writ petitions also stand disposed of. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. (V.K. Ahuja), December 2, 2009. Judge. (TILAK)