IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2010 / 10TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14363 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.K.RENUKA, D/O.V.K.MALATHI, AGED 35 YEARS, ANGANAWADI WORKER (UNDER SUSPENSION), CENTRE NO.81, SREENIKETH, KIZHAKKUMBRAM P.O., MANNUR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS PROJECT OFFICE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE ICDS PROJECT OFFICER, PARALI, PALAKKAD. BY G.P.SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.14363 of 2010 (U) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 31st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T On being sponsored by Employment Exchange to the 1st respondent, the petitioner was engaged as an Anganwadi Worker on daily wages. She was issued Ext.P1 memo alleging dereliction of duties, to which she submitted Ext.P2 explanation. Thereupon, Ext.P3 order was issued on 15/05/2008 rejecting the explanation and removing her from the engagement. Though by Ext.P4, the petitioner appologise for the misconducts alleged to have been committed by her, there was no response, and therefore, the writ petition is filed. 2. Evidently, the engagement of the petitioner was not on a regular basis and the petitioner has not been appointed in terms of the Rules. If that be so, Ext.P3 cannot be taken as an order suspending the services of the petitioner for reasons of unsatisfactory performance of duties. On the other hand, she was removed from service itself and this has happened on 15/05/2008. Therefore, I see no merit in the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg