THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.38 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: {Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar} The unsuccessful petitioner in W.P.No.25078 of 2004 is in appeal aggrieved by the order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the said Writ Petition. The appellant was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker under proceedings dated 16.07.2004 of the Child Development Project Officer, ICDS Project Office, Lakkireddy Palli, Kadapa District, the fourth respondent. The said appointment was cancelled by the later proceedings dated 15.12.2004 issued by the fourth respondent. This was the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.25078 of 2004. Perusal of the order under appeal reflects that the learned Judge, upon going through the records furnished to the Court by the Project Director, ICDS Project, Kadapa District, found that the appellant’s appointment as an Anganwadi Worker was not in accordance with the procedure stipulated in G.O.Ms.No.48, Women Development, Child Welfare & Disabled Welfare (ICDS) Department, dated 20.07.1998 and G.O.Ms.No.15 dated 16.04.2001, which effected certain modifications to G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 20.07.1998. The learned Judge, taking note of the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner that she was not put on notice prior to the cancellation of her appointment thereby violating the principles of natural justice, observed that natural justice was not a ritual and it would be necessary to establish substantive prejudice suffered by such violation. On facts, the learned Judge was of the opinion that no case was made out for interference and accordingly dismissed the Writ Petition. Sri Subhani S.M., learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the failure on the part of the authorities in putting his client on notice and giving her an opportunity of being heard prior to the cancellation of her appointment vitiated the entire action, as there was a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel relied upon the material on record to contend that his client’s candidature was sponsored and supported by the members of the Mothers’ Committee and therefore, the finding of the learned Judge that her appointment was not in accordance with the procedure was not correct. Perusal of G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 20.07.1998 reflects that a Selection Committee was to be constituted for selecting and appointing Anganwadi Workers and helpers. The Committee had to be constituted with the following members. 1. ICDS Supervisor Convenor 2. Representative of local NGO Member 3. All members of local DWCRA/IGA/ self-help groups (the mothers ICDS beneficiary children) Member 4. Elected women members of the Panchayat Member 5. Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch of the Village Spl. Invitee It is an admitted fact that the Sarpanch of Mattlivaddepali Village, the fifth respondent, who ought to have been a special invitee to the meeting of the Selection Committee, was not involved in the process of appointment of the appellant. Further, the learned Judge, upon perusal of the records produced, found that the convenor of the Selection Committee, the ICDS Supervisor was also not involved in the process of selection and, in fact, no committee was convened in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.48 dated 20.07.1998. In the light of the clear findings of the learned Judge, which remained unrebutted on facts, it is manifest that the appointment of the appellant as an Anganwadi Worker under the proceedings dated 16.07.2004 was not a product of the prescribed procedure for such selection and appointment. It is no doubt true that the fourth respondent ought to have put the appellant on notice prior to cancellation of her appointment and to that extent, there is violation of the principles of natural justice. However, it is a settled legal proposition that this Court would not interfere with an illegality if the result of such interference would be the revival or perpetuation of another illegality {G.Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh[1]}. In these circumstances, though the order dated 15.12.2004 cancelling the appellant’s appointment as an Anganwadi Worker is tainted by illegality owing to violation of the principles of natural justice, we are not inclined to interfere with or set aside the same, as the result of such interference would mean that her illegal appointment under the proceedings dated 16.07.2004 would be restored. Discretionary exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to sub-serve such a purpose. The Writ Appeal is therefore devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) _______________ (SANJAY KUMAR, J) 16th August 2011 RRB [1] AIR 1966 SC 828