1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5142/2003 (Smt. Saraswati Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 19.5.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the petitioner. Mrs. R.R. Kanwar, Dy. Govt. Counsel. In this petitioner, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.5.2003 (Annexure-6) whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated by Child Development Project Officer (CDPO), Women and Child Welfare Department, Revdar, District Sirohi. The petitioner was initially appointed as part time Helper (Sahaika) at Aanganwadi Kendra, Rajgarh vide order dated 27.7.1984 since then, the petitioner continued in service and was discharging her duties in the respondent department at Revdar District Sirohi and petitioner was having an unblemished service record as Helper in Aanganwadi Kendra which is a project undertaken by the Gram Panchayat, Lunol, Panchayat Samiti Revdar, District 2 Sirohi. As per petitioner certain complaints were filed against her by annoyed villagers to the CDPO who in turn recommended the termination of the petitioner to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 vide communication dated 19.7.2003 informed the respondent No.3 that the department Women and Child Welfare has got no jurisdiction to remove or terminate the service of Sahayika working in the Aanganwadi centres, therefore, the matter was referred to the Gram Panchayat Lunol for taking final decision. The main contention of the petitioner is that her service were terminated vide order Annexure-6 while observing that new helpers have been appointed. The services of the petitioner are no more required and in place of petitioner two new helpers were appointed while discontinuing the services of the petitioner. As per petitioner, before passing impugned order Annexure-6, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no resolution by the Gram Panchayat to discontinue the services of the petitioner. Upon perusal of certified copy of the resolution placed on record by the petitioner as Annexure-5, it is clear that in Resolution No.3 dated 3 1.5.2003, no resolution was passed by Gram Panchayat Lunol for discontinuing the petitioner's services but it is only observed that the petitioner may be transferred elsewhere and Smt. Narangi Devi and Smt. Shanti Devi may be retained as Sahayika in the Aanganwadi Centres. Main limb of arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no resolution of the Gram Panchayat Lunol which is required for terminating the services of Aanganwadi worker (Sahayika) then there is no question of terminating the services of the petitioner but contrary to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat vide Annexure-6, the services of the petitioner were terminated, which is totally illegal and unconstitutional and passed on the ground which is not in existence, therefore, the impugned order Annexure-6 may kindly be quashed and set aside. In reply to the writ petition, in para 8 it is stated by the respondents that services of the petitioner have not been discontinued by the answering respondents but the same have been discontinued by the concerned Gram Sabha. Since the services were not extended by the Gram Panchayat, then, there was no occasion to continue the services of the petitioner by the answering respondents. It is also replied that for taking final 4 decision for terminating or discontinuing the services, the jurisdiction is left with the Gram Sabha only and the Gram Sabha is competent to continue the services of the petitioner. Further, it is submitted that there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner herself is responsible for her discontinuance. The petitioner was appointed on honorary basis and there were certain allegations against the petitioner, therefore, earlier also on 7.5.2002 a notice was given to the petitioner because she remained absent from duties for sometime. After perusing the relevant record of the case, more specifically Annexures-4, 5 and 6, it is clear that for terminating the services of Aanganwadi worker (Sahayika), resolution by concerned Gram Panchayat is necessary. A bare perusal of Annexure-5, it is expressly resolved that the petitioner may be transferred elsewhere while retaining Smt. Narangi Devi and Shanti Devi as Sahayika. Further, it is nowhere resolved that services of the petitioner may be dispensed with, therefore, the whole basis of terminating the services of the petitioner is lacking in this case because as per the respondents, the Gram Sabha of concerned Gram Panchayat is competent to take final decision by way of passing resolution to terminate the services of the Aanganwari worker (Sahayika) and obviously, there is no resolution of Gram Panchayat Lunol for terminating the services of 5 the petitioner, therefore, the order Annexure-6 is completely illegal, unconstitutional and has no foundation to stand before eye of law. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.5.2003 Annexure-6 is hereby set aside with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The respondents are at liberty to terminate the services of the petitioner after following due process of law, if so warranted. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. arun