1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R (1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5263/2006 (Smt. Jinya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) (2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6602/2006 (Smt. Jiyande Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order : 04/05/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for petitioner Smt. Jinya. Mr. B.K.Mehar for petitioner Smt. Jiyande. Mr. Rameshwar Dave, Dy.G.A. for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- Both these writ petitions filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, they are being heard and decided together. For the purpose of decision of these two writ petitions, the facts stated in the Writ Petition No. 5263/06 are taken as a leading case. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these writ petitions are that petitioner Smt. Jinya and petitioner Smt. Jiyande were appointed by the respondent Child Development Project Officer, Jaisalmer on the post of Anganwadi workers. 2 Petitioner Smt. Jinya was appointed at Anganwadi Centre, Javandh Juni-I vide order dated 1.11.1994 and petitioner Smt. Jiyande was appointed at Anganwadi Centre, Javandh Juni-II vide order dated 7.9.90 and both the petitioners have been working since their appointment at their respective place of posting. By order dated 28.10.2005, the respondent No.4 temporarily stayed the functioning of the Anganwadi Centres, at Javandh Juni and directed to shift the centres temporarily to the nearing centre. By Annex.7 dated 30.1.2006, it has been stated that Gram Panchayat in its General meeting took a decision in respect of reopening of the centres while stating that the petitioners who have been working as Anganwadi workers since 1990 and 1994 have been rendering their services satisfactorily and therefore, they be allowed to continue at the centres. By order Annex.8 dated 24.2.2006, the respondent State sought reasons for temporarly closing both the centre from the respondent Deputy Director, ICDS cum officiating Project Director and directed reopining of the centres. By order Annex.11, the respondent State directed to transfer one of the Anganwadi Centres which was opended later and the Anganwadi centre which was opended prior in time be allowed to continue and for the purpose of Anganwadi workers it was directed to have a fresh selection. Aggrieved by the order directing a fresh selection as also transferring one of the Anganwadi Centre, the 3 petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. From the documents annexed with the writ petition, it appears that no reasons have been assigned for even temporarily staying the functioning of the Anganwadi Centres. It has not been disputed that both the centres at Javandh Juni, Tehsil and District Jaisalmer have been functioning since 1990 and 1994 and no irregularity or illegality have been shown against the Anganwadi workers who are the present petitioners herein. The documents placed on record show that the services rendered by the petitioners have been found satisfatory. Annex.5 in Writ Petition No.6602/06 clearly goes to show that the services rendered by the petitioners as Anganwadi workers over last 13 to 15 years have been found satisfactory and Anganwadi centres are being run properly. The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition stating therein that since the population of the area is less than 1000, therefore, two centres cannot run. The grievance of petitioner Smt. Jiyande in Writ Petition No. 6602/06 is that she was appointed vide order dated 7.9.90 as Anganwadi worker at Anganwadi Centre, Javandh Juni, Gram Panchayat, Dhaysar, Panchayat Samiti, Jaisalmer and since then she has been working and therefore, there could be no reason for holding a fresh selection for the Anganwadi 4 workers ignoring her claim who has experience and have been satisfactorily rendering the services as Anganwadi worker from last 15 years which is evident from Annex.5. The grievance of petitioner Smt. Jinya is that she has been working as Anganwadi worker since 1.11.1994 at Anganwadi Centre, Javandh Juni-I and without any valid reasons the respondents have closed the centre amounting to termination of services of the petitioner which is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that both the Anganwadi Centres are situated in the interior area of district Jaisalmer and the population of the area cannot be equated with that of other parts of the State and if viewed from geographical point of view, then the two centres are justified at Gram Panchayat Dhaysar, village Javandh Juni, Panchayat Samiti Jaisalmer. The respondent State in the reply only came with a case that the population of the area is less than 1000 therefore, two centres cannot run, however, no foundation has been made as to whether the population of the area is really less than 1000, on the contrary vide order dated 24.2.2006 the State has directed to re-open the centres immediately. If the centres are running for last 13 to 15 years, there is no reason for curtailing the number of centres and holding fresh selection for the Anganwadi workers. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in my view the respondents fell in error in temporarily 5 staying the functioning of both the centres as also directing to run one centre only and for which to hold fresh selection of the Anganwadi workers. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. The orders impugned Annex.6 28.10.2005 and Annex.11 dated 01.07.2006 in Writ Petition No.5263/06 and order impugned dated 28.10.2005 Annex.4 in Writ Petition No.6602/06 are quashed and the respondents are directed to function both the centres i.e. Anganwadi Centres-I and II at village Javandh Juni in Gram Panchayat Dhaysar, Panchayat Samiti Jaisalmer by allowing both the petitioners to work as Anganwadi workers. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp