IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH APRIL 2011 / 22ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 12110 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. SAROJA BALAN, W/O. LATE BALAN, CHENNACKAPPADAM HOUSE, ANJUMOORTHI P.O., MANGALAM, VADAKKANCHERRY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. LAKSHMI C., W/O. P.K.KRISHNAN, KENKULAPARAMBU HOUSE, THACHANADI, PUTHUCKODE P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF WOMEN & CHILD DEVELOPMENT, SASTHRI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 5. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (ICDS), ALATHUR-678 541. GOVT. PLEADER SHRI.ANTONY MUKKATH ADV.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 12110 of 2011 ================== Dated this the 12th day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T While the petitioners were working as anganvadi workers, they resigned from service for contesting elections to the local bodies. The petitioners submit that they resigned because they were under the impression that holding of office as an anganvadi worker is a disqualification for contesting the election. Now they have come across Ext.P5 judgment of the Supreme Court, which declares that employment as an anganvadi worker is not a disqualification for contesting the local body elections. The petitioners seek the following reliefs: “i) call for the records relating to Exhibits P1 to P4, P6 and P7. ii) issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order or direction, quashing Exts.P2 and P4: iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction, declaring that the petitioners are entitled to continue in the post of Anganwadi workers as prayed for in Exts.P6 and P7 and thereby directing the respondents to reinstate them in service with all service benefits; iv) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondent No.5 to dispose of Exts.P6 and P7 in a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner (sic).” Admittedly, the petitioners resigned voluntarily without any compulsion from anybody. That being so, the petitioners cannot now contend that in view of Ext.P5 judgment, they are entitled to be w.p.c.12110/11 2 reinstated in service. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge