IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2011 / 15TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 4679 of 2004(F) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- BINDHU C.P., CHIRATTAKATIL HOUSE, MANKULAM P.O., THALUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.V.P.SEEMANDINI, SENIOR ADVOCATE SMT.T.B.REMANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. MANKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, MANKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. PROJECT OFFICER, I.C.D.S., DEVIKULAM. 3. SMT.JANAKIAMMA T., CHOLATHODIYIL, MANKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD R3 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 8729 OF 2004 WPC. NO. 2257/2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 4679/2004(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITONER DATED 04/01/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE LIST OF PERSONS TO BE APPOINTED IN MANKULAM ANGANWADI NO.87. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2003 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/01/2004 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CANCELLING THE PETITIONER'S APPOINTMENT AS ANGANWADI WORKER. P7: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 13/02/01 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.161/97/LSD. DATED 07/07/1997. P9: COPY OF THE G.O.(P) NO.20/98/SW. DATED 26/06/1998. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.4679/04, 8729/04 & 2257/05 ------------------------------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T All these Writ Petitions concern the claim for appointment as Anganwadi Workers. First I will consider W.P.(C)No.4679/04. The petitioner challenges the appointment of the 3rd respondent as an Anganwadi Worker allegedly overlooking the claim of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, she was initially appointed in a leave vacancy for a limited period. Again, she was appointed for a different spell from 4.1.2003 to 31.3.2003 in a maternity leave vacancy as per Exhibit P1. When the person who has availed leave rejoined back she was transferred to another ICDS Project and in that vacancy the petitioner was appointed as per Exhibit P3 order with effect from 16.12.2003 for a period of three months or until a permanent hand joins duty. Thereafter, a notification was issued by the 1st respondent pursuant to which the petitioner submitted an application. In the ranked list prepared, she has assigned rank No.2 wherein the 3rd respondent has assigned rank No.1. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent was appointed. According to the petitioner, the list prepared by the W.P.(C)No.4679/04, 8729/04 & 2257/05 -2- Panchayat is not one after considering the earlier appointments of the petitioner. 2. In W.P.(C)No.8729/2004, the 3rd respondent in W.P. (C)No.4679/04 is the petitioner. She was appointed as per Exhibit P3 order for a period of 179 days. According to the petitioner, the appointment was made by the Panchayat, who alone has power in the matter. By a later order Exhibit P5, the 5th respondent was appointed by respondents 3 and 4. It is submitted that the Panchayat Raj Act alone will govern the matter considering the power for appointment of an Anganwadi worker. 3. In W.P.(C)No.2257/05, the challenge is against the power of the 5th respondent to make appointment. Therein also the Panchayat concerned is the same, ie; Mankulam Panchayat and the petitioner submitted an application pursuant to the notification issued by the Panchayat. 4. So far as W.P.(C)No.4679/04 is concerned, even going by the appointment order, which is challenged in the Writ Petition, it is evident that the period of appointment was initially for 179 days. Even though the petitioner contends that she was W.P.(C)No.4679/04, 8729/04 & 2257/05 -3- entitled for regularisation, but as far as the claim raised in the Writ Petition is concerned, it is not one for regularisation but preference for appointment over the 3rd respondent therein. Evidently, the period of spell of the appointment of the 3rd respondent was only for 179 days. 5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the project in question, namely ICDS Project is one implemented by the Social Welfare Department and so far as the permanent appointment of Anganwadi workers and helpers are concerned, it is done by a selection committed chaired by the District Collector. In that view of the matter, even though the Secretary of the Panchayat had made the appointment on temporary basis, the said period of appointment is already over. Moreover, the appointment was only of a temporary nature and at this distance of time no interference is called for in the matter. 6. What remains is the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi worker. This is a matter which the petitioner will have to represent as and when any notification is issued by the Social Welfare Department. In terms of the conditions or qualifications or prescriptions for eligibility alone the W.P.(C)No.4679/04, 8729/04 & 2257/05 -4- petitioner can claim any permanent appointment. Leaving open the remedy to make application as and when it is called for the Writ Petition is dismissed. 7. In W.P.(C)No.8729/04, what is contended is that the Panchayat alone is having the power to make the appointment. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is pointed out that the Panchayat authorities have no power to appoint any Anganwadi worker under the ICDS Project. It is mentioned that as per order dated 30.11.1996, there is a specific direction that for appointment of Anganwadi Worker/Helper or transfer, the Project Officer will have the power to make the appointment. Evidently, the post is not one created in the Panchayat Establishment. Angandi Workers are engaged by the ICDS Project under the Social Welfare Department. The Government has prescribed various procedures for making appointments including constitution of selection committees under different Government orders. In that view of the matter, the contention that the Panchayat alone has got the power and the Project Officer cannot have any source of power to make appointment cannot be sustained. Apart from that the petitioner was W.P.(C)No.4679/04, 8729/04 & 2257/05 -5- appointed for a period of 179 days and after the period of appointment the 5th respondent was appointed by the Project Officer. In the light of the view taken, there is nothing wrong in the appointment of the 5th respondent. In W.P.(C)No.2257/05, the petitioner challenges the power of the Project Officer to make the appointment. In the light of the view taken above, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. The Writ Petitions are thus dismissed. No costs. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) dsn