a]^^aa^sni—»-i»«»a»«I«B'*"'''a °"'°' ^ ~^. mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (^ WRIT PETITIONNo. 1168 of 2006 PETITIONER . : Smt. Rukhmani Devi VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. PostforpronouncementoftKe Judgmerit and Order on /3 704/2009 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 7 mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WMTPETITIONNo. 1168 of 2006 Smt. Rukhmani Devi W/o Shivram Sahu, Aged 50 years, Occupation* Angan Badi Worker, R/o Village Odgi, Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, DistrictKoreaC.G. VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Woman and Child Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur C.G. 2. The Collector, Korea, District Korea C.G. 3. Janpad Panchayat, Baikunthpur, Through the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G. 4. Project Officer, Integrated Woman and Child Development Department, Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G. 5. Gram Panchayat, Through the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Talwapara, Janpad Panchayat Baikunthpur, District Korea C.G. Present: Shri Rakesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1, 2 and 4. WRJT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB j_Hon'Me Shn Satish K. Aenihotri, J. (Passed on .(2;M'day of April, 2009) 1. The petitioner, by this petition seeks the following reliefs: "7.2 The Hon'ble High court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the order passed by the respondent no. 2 dated 10.1.2006 (Annexure P/l), as well as resolution passed by the respondent no. 3 dated 30.08.2005 (Annexure P/5), in the ends of justice. 7.3. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent No. 3 and 4 to make payment of salary of last 16 months to the petitioner, in the ends ofjustice." 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi worker on 10.04.1987 (Annexure P/3) at Anganbadi Centre, Chhinddand on temporary basis. The petitioner continued her work satisfactorily, and as such, the Gram Sabha of Gram ^Panchayat Talwapara passed a resolution on 25.08.2005, admiring the satisfactory performance of the petitioner as Anganbadi worker and recommended for payment ofback-wages of 16 months (Annexure P/4) to the petitioner. 3. The petitioner, on 04.09.2005 suddenly came to know that she has been removed from the post of Anganbadi worker and fhereafter she came to know that on the basis of a resolution passed by the respondent No. 3 on 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/5), the petitioner has been removed from the post ofAnganbadi worker, hence this petition. 4. Shri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submitthat no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order ofremoval. Learned counsel would further submit that the resolution dated 30.09.2005 (Annexure P/5) passed by the respondent No. 3 is in contravention of the scheme and the impugned order of removal was passed on the basis ofsome complaints. 5. Per contra, Smt. Ghai, leamed Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents 1, 2 and 4 would s'ubmit that the performance of the petitioner as an Anganbadi worker was always suspicious. There were gross UTegularities committed by her in distribution of food, taking attendance of students', keeping clean environment m the Anganbadi centre etc. There were many occasions whea the petitioner's work was questioned by the higher authorities as is evident from the explanation letter issued by the Supervisor (Annexure R-l/2) r ""%. \ "\ ^S'SSSSBS'!. S i& •^. w «SSS wherein, three days time was granted to the petitioner to explain her conduct. 6. Smt. Ghai would further contend that inspite of several opportunities granted to the petitioner to improve her conduct, she failed miserably and as such, the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order, who as per the appointment mles, is the competent authority. 7. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The petitioner was appointed as Anganbadi woi-ker on 10.04.1987 (Annexure P/3) purely on temporary basis stating that the petitioner could be removed &om services without any notice on fmding the work unsatisfactory. The petitioner has supplied a circular dated 27.05.1996 (Annexure P/2) whereunder procedure for removal of Anganbadi worker/Assistants is provided. In case of the petitioner, the circular dated 27.05.1996 (Annexure P/2) may not be applicable in respect of the appointment. The petitioner has not produced any other circular which was prevalent at the time ofher appointment. The above circular (Annexure P/2) does not provide for holdmg any enquiry after framing charges before removal of Anganbadi Worker. It is stated in the circular that if there are serious irregularities, the Gram Panchayat may pass resolution and send it to the Supervisor to take steps for removal ofthe Anganbadi worker. 8. In the present case, on having received a complaint with regard to grave irregularities, a preliminary enquiry was conducted wherein it was found that the petitioner used to commit adulteration in oil with the purpose to derive benefits. Accordmgly, a notice was issued seeking explanation ofthe petitioner. After having afforded proper opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 3.9.2005 (Annexure R/l-S) was passed. Against the said order, the petitioner prefen-ed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 which was dismissed on 10.01.2006. The Collector/respondent No. 2 has examined all the aspects ofthe matter and came to the conclusion that there •? was no irregularity or illegality in removal ofthe petitioner. 9. The appointment of the petitioner as Anganbadi worker was not under any statutory rules framed in exercise ofpowers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The appoiiitment of the petitioner was by respondent No. 4/Project Officer on temporary basis. Thus, it cannot be held that the appointment of the petitioner was in accordance with law. Even otherwise, there was no publication of notice or invitation to all the concemed, and as such, the appointment ofthe petitioner was dehors the constitutional scheme of employment. If the appointment of the petitioner itself was dehors the constitutional scheme of employment, the petitioner has no right to continuation, reinstatement or reappointment. (See- Secrefary, State ofKarnataka & Others v. Umadevi (3) and others , Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Iridian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Lt(f and Offieial Liquidator v. Dayanand and others .) lO.Applying the well-settled principles of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases (supra) to the facts of the present case and in view ofthe discussions made heremabove, there is no merit in this case. 1 l.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit * (2006) 4 SCC 1 2 (2007) 1 SCC 408 3 (2008)108cci