CWP(T) No. 6119 of 2008 06.10.2010 Present: Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel submits that the matter in issue is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 663 of 2007, titled as Santosh versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 11.11.2008, copy of which is taken on record. 2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that her candidature for the post of Anganwadi Worker, Anganwadi Centre Dhauni was not considered for the reason that Anganwadi Worker was to be posted at the centre by way of transfer. However contrary to the guidelines respondent No. 4 stands transferred to the said place. 3. Relevant portion of the guidelines reads as under:- “4. Transfer/Adjustment of the Anganwadi Workers/Workers: (a) Under ICDS programme there is no provision of transfer of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers as these are honorary workers. However, in the case of marriage of an Anganwadi Worker or Helper, if at the place of her marriage, vacancy of an Anganwadi Workers or Helper exists she would be transferred or adjusted in that Anganwadi Centre. (b) Request for adjustment/transfer can be made to the Child Development Project Officer on plain papers with certificate of marriage. -2- (c) Child Development Project Officer will be the competent authority to order transfer/adjustment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers within the project and outside project but within the District, the District Programme Officer will be the competent authority to do so. Outside district transfers/adjustments will be done with the approval of Director on the recommendation of the Distt. Programme Officer of the both distts.” 4. In my considered view the aforesaid decision does not apply to the instant facts. 5. It is orally urged on behalf of respondent No. 4 that prior to her marriage she was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker. When her marriage took place in the year 1993 she was adjusted at Anganwadi Centre Matoli where the post was lying vacant and was nearest to the place of her marriage. Dhauni is closer to the place of her marriage than Matoli. 6. Uninfluenced by such facts even from the reply filed by the State it is clear that on 23.10.1994 private respondent No. 4 was adjusted at Anganwadi Centre Matoli. It is further clarified that initially she was posted at Matoli for the reason that no Anganwadi Centre was available at the place of her marriage. Thereafter she was transferred to Dhauni where she joined on 20.10.2006 and is working as such. Adjustment has been made in accordance with the guidelines and in larger public interest. -3- 7. Consequently it cannot be said that there is any infraction of the guidelines framed by the respondents. No legally enforceable right of the petitioner stands violated. Present petition without any merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 6, 2010 (PK)