IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No.2070 of 2007 Date of decision: 02.03.2010. Smt.Kaushlya Thakur …Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr.B.S. Ranjan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud,J. The petitioner is working as an Anganwari Worker at Anganwari Centre, Ward No.4, Rajgarh. Prior to this, the petitioner on her appointment as Anganwari Worker was posted at Lanabasali. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Programme Officer, Nahan, Annexure P-1, canceling her transfer to Rajgarh. The order stated that the case was not found fit according to departmental standards. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the petitioner was at any time associated with or given any opportunity of being heard or a chance to explain her case before the order Annexure P-1 was passed. It is not clear from the record as to what were the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? Yes. 2 reasons/basis for the respondents to have concluded that the transfer of the petitioner was not according to departmental standards as the order recites. Surely, the basic minimum requirement was that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to show cause as to why her transfer from Rajgarh be not cancelled. Learned Additional Advocate General urges that according to the norms adopted in the scheme/guidelines (Annexure R-1), only those ladies can be transferred to a place where her/their husband(s) reside in cases marriage is solemnized after appointment, but, in the present case, the applicant was already married at the time of her initial appointment as Anganwari Worker. In the reply to the petition, it is submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to be transferred to Rajgarh because her case does not fall within the purview of the Scheme (Annexure R-1) applicable to Anganwari Workers and she must work at her place of initial appointment. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that Anganwari Worker is a honorary appointment made for a particular place. No incumbent is entitled to claim transfer which is not strictly governed by the policy. I am not going into the legality of the policy as urged. All I need to say is that the petitioner should have been given a chance of explaining and showing cause as to why her transfer should not be cancelled and that her case was covered by the policy. Since this procedure 3 which was mandatory was not adopted, Annexure A-1 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall not be transferred from Rajgarh except in accordance with law. This order does not preclude the respondents from re- determining the matter. If and as and when such action is taken, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity of being heard and decision taken in accordance with law. No order as to costs. All interim orders are vacated. All miscellaneous applications are disposed of. March 2, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.