IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 1354 of 2005 Date of decision: 24.3.2008 Smt. Meera Devi Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr.Avinash Jaryal, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For respondent No. 6: Mr. Vikram Thakur, vice counsel Per Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This petition is directed against the order of the learned Tribunal dated 2nd August, 2005 passed in O.A.(D) No. 79 of 2005 whereby the original application filed by the present petitioner has been rejected. At the outset we may state that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition with regard to Anganwari 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 workers since they are not holding a civil post under the State. Even dehors this fact, we find that there is no merit in the present petition. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that one Smt. Simro Devi was appointed as Anganwari worker in Anganwari Centre, Kuleth in March, 1992. According to the averments made in the petition, on 12th November, 2003 services of Smt. Simro Devi were terminated by the Panchayat since she remained absent from duty. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed as Anganwari worker in the aforesaid Centre. In the meantime, Smt. Simro Devi, respondent No. 6, approached the higher authorities. Smt. Simro Devi had not been appointed by the Gram Panchayat and had been appointed by the Welfare Department. Prior to 7.9.2000, Anganwari workers were being appointed by the Welfare Department and it was only thereafter that guidelines were issued empowering the Panchayats to appont/terminate Anganwari workers. The power of termination was also given to the Panchayats vide this Notification. The Rule relating to termination of Anganwari worker/helper appointed by the Welfare Department prior 3 to the issuance of Notification dated 7.9.2000 reads as follows:- “The termination of such Anganwadi workers/Helpers who have been appointed by the Welfare Department prior to the issue of the notification for the appointment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers through Panchayat under the ICDS programme in Himachal Pradesh shall not be done by the Panchayat without assigning any proper reason and without approval with the Welfare Deptt.” A perusal of this rule shows that the services of respondent No. 6 could not have been terminated without first taking approval from the Welfare Department. This admittedly has not been done. Therefore, the termination of respondent No. 6 was illegal and void. She was bound to be reinstated and resultantly the appointment of the petitioner terminated. We find no merit in this petition which is accordingly rejected. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. March 24, 2008(K) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J.