THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.601 of 2010 ORDER: The procedure for appointment of Anganwadi Workers is prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.28 Women Development, Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 02.12.2004. A Committee comprising of District Collector (Chairperson), Local M.L.A.(Member), Deputy Medical and Health Officer (Member), C.D.P.O. of I.C.D.S. Project ( Member), and Project Director, D.W. and C.D.A. (Member-Convener) is the appointing authority. A notification was issued by the Committee constituted for appointment of Anganwadi Workers for Badapuram Village, Darakonda Mandal, Prakasam District. The petitioner, respondent No.4 and others appeared and they were interviewed on 11.07.2008. The petitioner was selected and she was issued order of appointment on 08.01.2009. Respondent No.4 filed W.P.No.7093 of 2009 questioning the appointment of the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of leaving it open to respondent No.4 to file a representation before the District Collector, Prakasam, respondent No.1 herein. The Project Director, District Women & Child Welfare, Ongole, respondent No.2 herein, issued proceedings, dated 09.12.2009, removing the petitioner from service. It was stated that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the Tahsildar, Darakonda, respondent No.3 herein, conducted enquiry and the petitioner was found to be resident of Jagannadhapuram Village. Taking that into account, respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner and passed the impugned order, dated 09.12.2009. The petitioner challenges the same. She contends that the appointing authority is a Committee constituted under the G.O. and respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction. She denies the allegation that she is a resident of Jagannadhapuram Village. It is her case that no notice was issued by respondent No.3 before he submitted a report. It is also urged that the whole exercise undertaken by respondent No.2 is contrary to the orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.7093 of 2009. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 on the one hand and respondent No.4 on the other filed separate counter-affidavits. The basis for the impugned order is said to be the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.7093 of 2009 and the enquiry, that was conducted, thereafter. Heard Smt.P.Radhika, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4. As mentioned earlier, the appointing authority for the post of Anganwadi Worker, is a Committee comprising of five persons. Respondent No.1 happens to be the Chairman and respondent No.2, the Convener. It is on the basis of selection made by the Committee, that the petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker in January, 2009. When respondent No.4 disputed or challenged the appointment of the petitioner, this Court permitted her to make a representation to respondent No.1. In the impugned order, no reference is made to any exercise undertaken by respondent No.1. The Enquiry Report said to have been submitted by respondent No.3 is treated as the basis. It is not even mentioned that respondent No.3 has issued notice to the petitioner before recording a finding to the effect that she is the resident of Jagannadhapuram. The show cause notice issued by respondent No.2 is almost an empty formality, since the adverse finding has already been recorded by that time. When the appointing authority is a committee, the matter of removal must also go before that very authority. A circular issued by the Commissioner for Women and Child Welfare way back on 09.02.1995 is to the effect that not only the matters of removal or acceptance of resignation, but also of transfer must go before the Committee. The impugned order does not make any mention to the resolution of the Committee, if any. Respondent No.2 appears to have taken the shelter under the orders of this Court and he not only has removed the petitioner from service, but also has proceeded to appoint respondent No.4 on 12.01.2010. Respondent No.2 issued a show cause notice in July, 2009 to the petitioner almost in butler English, based upon a report of respondent No.3. When he is not conferred with the power under the G.O. nor was he directed by this Court to undertake any exercise, it is totally incompetent, if not, unbecoming of him, to have removed the petitioner from service in utter violation of the prescribed procedure. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. As a consequence, the appointment of respondent No.4 shall stand set aside and the petitioner shall be entitled to function as Anganwadi Worker. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 29.10.2010. kdl