1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4939/2002. : : Smt. Sunita Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : : Date of Order 8.4.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Ajay Tantia for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 19.6.2002 by which her engagement as Anganwadi Karyakarta was discontinued. 3. Shri Ajay Tantia, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was not provided any opportunity of hearing prior to passing impugned order dated 19.6.2002. It was contended that impugned order has been passed in absolutely arbitrary and malafide manner and without there being any material against her. Impugned order was passed on the ground that services of petitioner was not found satisfactory, if that be so, the respondents 2 were required to issue show cause notice to petitioner. Respondents arbitrarily discharged the petitioner from duties whereas there was no complaint against her of any misbehavior. In fact, service of petitioner were always satisfactory. The impugned order has been passed due to political pressure and without application of mind. Learned counsel has referred to Annexure-3 Panchnama, which is prepared by Panchas on 30.11.2002 in which work of petitioner was inspected by a team of Gram Panchayat and work of petitioner was found satisfactory. It is therefore, prayed that writ petition be allowed and impugned order be quashed and set aside. 4. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that selection of petitioner as Anganwadi Karyakarta was made by Gram Shabha, Marhampur on 10.2.2002 vide Resolution No.10 till the candidate having qualification of VIII class was available because petitioner was having qualification of only VII class. It was contended that engagement of petitioner was made on temporary basis on the condition that she will get honorarium and that if her work was found unsatisfactory, she would be removed without prior notice 3 and she will be responsible for safety and security of material provided at Angan Badi Center and that her services shall automatically come to an ends at the expiry of project. It was submitted that services of petitioner were highly unsatisfactory. Petitioner was issued warning letters time and again and given show cause notice as to why her services will not be discontinued. Reference was made to notices dated 14.3.2002, 13.5.2002 and 12.6.2002. In fact, even prior to passing impugned order dated 19.6.2002, petitioner was given full opportunity to improve her work but she had failed to so do. Number of complaints about the work of petitioner by Gram Panchayat have been received and ultimately Gram Shabha resolved on 26.2.2002 to remove petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta. Learned counsel referred to notice dated 12.6.2002 and submitted that when Anganwadi Center was inspected, it was found that work of petitioner was not satisfactory and petitioner was given opportunity to improve work and asked to submit explanation within a period of three days failing which she would be discontinued from the engagement. It was submitted that impugned order was passed after making full compliance of principles of natural justice and in view of conduct of petitioner. 4 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the record, I find that engagement of petitioner clearly stated that in case her services are found unsatisfactory she would be discontinued without any notice. In the present case, contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner that she was not served notice prior to passing of impugned order and that her services were satisfactory and there was no complaint against her are not substantiated on record. In fact, the respondents have amply proved that in repeated inspections carried by Chief Development Project Officer, not only the petitioner was not found present at the center, but also her services were found unsatisfactory. The Gram Shabha had to resolve her removal. Respondents served a notice earlier on 14.3.2002 thereafter on 13.5.2002 and then passed resolution on 12.6.2002. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any violation of principles of natural justice. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.39.