THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE NO.1117 OF 2010 DATED: 19.07.2011 Between : 1. Bathala Lakshmamma (Lakshmi) and 3 others. … Petitioners And 1. V. Sarada and 2 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE NO.1117 OF 2010 ORDER : This Contempt Case is filed with a prayer to punish the respondents for alleged violation of the order dated 10.11.2009 in W.P.No.14017 of 2009. The petitioners herein filed W.P.No.14017 of 2009 aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in absorbing them as Anganwadi Workers by conversion from ECE (Early Child Education) Instructors in terms of G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000. The petitioners also sought a declaration that the order dated 8.10.2008 passed by the Project Director, ICDA, Nellore District, whereunder the request of the petitioners for absorption as Anganwadi Workers was rejected was arbitrary and illegal. After hearing both the parties, this Court by order dated 10.11.2009, while setting aside the order dated 8.10.2008, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law strictly in accordance with the directions of this Court in W.P.No.1287 of 2007, dated 16.09.2008. Alleging that the respondents had once again rejected the candidature of the petitioners illegally and that the said action amounts to wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.14017 of 2009, the present Contempt Case is filed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the cases of the petitioners were considered strictly in accordance with the directions of this Court and by proceedings dated 31.01.2010 the petitioners were informed that their claim for appointment as Anganwadi Workers had been rejected. Thus it is pleaded that there was no inaction on their part and the contempt proceedings are unwarranted. The petitioners filed a detailed reply affidavit contending that the rejection order dated 31.01.2010 was not in conformity with the orders passed by this Court and therefore the respondents are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The material available on record shows that the petitioners, who were appointed as ECE Instructors during the year 1997 and worked as such in MPP Schools in Nellore District for a long time had earlier filed W.P.No.1287 of 2007 aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not considering their cases for appointment to the posts of Anganwadi Workers. The said writ petition was disposed of along with a batch of writ petitions by order dated 16.09.2008 granting liberty to the petitioners to make representations for conversion of their respective ECE Centres to that of Anganwadi Centres as per G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000 and directing the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the said representations taking into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench in W.P.No.18585 of 2003, dated 12.11.2003. Pursuant thereto, the Project Director, ICDA, passed an order dated 8.10.2008 informing the petitioners that their claim for absorption as Anganwadi Workers was not possible since the posts of Anganwadi Workers in all the Centres were already filled up. Aggrieved by the said order dated 8.10.2008, the petitioners filed W.P.No.14017 of 2009 contending inter alia that being the ECE Instructors, the petitioners should have been given preference while making the appointment to the posts of Anganwadi workers as held by the Division Bench in W.P.No.18585 of 2003. Having accepted the said plea, this Court set aside the rejection order dated 8.10.2008 and disposed of W.P.No.14017 of 2009 with a direction to reconsider the case of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In pursuance thereof, the proceedings dated 31.01.2010 came to be issued by the District Collector - 2nd respondent herein. It is alleged in this Contempt Case that the said proceedings dated 31.01.2010 are not in conformity with the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.14017 of 2009 as well as the earlier writ petitions and therefore the respondents are liable to be punished under the Contempt of Courts Act. As could be seen, the entire claim of the petitioners is based upon G.O.Ms.No.49, dated 2.5.2000, under which a Scheme was formulated for implementation of the decision of the State Government to converge the ECE component of DPEP (District Primary Education Project) with Integrated Child Development Services Scheme by providing financial assistance to the willing, existing Mothers’ Committees of the Anganwadi Centres. Guidelines with regard to procedure to be followed for implementation of the said Scheme were issued by DPEP in consultation with Women Development & Child Welfare Department. Clause-8 of the said Guidelines reads as under : “Wherever ECE Centres of DPEP are existing and no AWC is functioning presently and if the Women Development & Child Welfare Department wish to open a new Anganwadi Center, the existing ECE Center should be converted as Anganwadi Center to provide above mentioned facilities wherever the Mothers Committee is building for such Convergence. The Instructor and Helper of the ECE may be continued with the approval of the Mothers Committee, if they otherwise satisfy the criteria for appointment and if the Mothers Committee so desire. If the Committee is not satisfied they may replace with other local persons following the duly prescribed procedure.” A reading of the above clause shows that on conversion of the existing ECE Centre as Anganwadi Centre, the Instructors and Helpers of ECE can be continued provided the criteria for appointment is satisfied. Moreover the approval of Mothers’ Committee is also necessary. In the instant case, the rejection of candidature of the petitioners was on the ground that the petitioners 2, 3 and 4 failed to attend the interview for selections and though the petitioner No.1 attended the interview, the Mothers’ Committee had chosen one K. Rajeswari for appointment as Anganwadi Worker. The procedure so adopted by the respondents in my considered opinion is in accordance with Clause-8 and therefore the order dated 31.01.2010 passed by the 2nd respondent cannot be held to be contrary to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.14017 of 2009. Therefore, the allegation that the respondents had flouted the order dated 10.09.2009 in W.P.No.14017 of 2009 is unfounded. However it is made clear that this Court has not gone into the validity / legality of the rejection order dated 31.01.2010. Hence it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the said order by availing the appropriate remedy as available under law. Subject to the above, the Contempt Case is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 19.07.2011 gbs