Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt. Ramrati Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 April, 2023

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
                                               ON THE 19 th OF APRIL, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 8315 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SMT. RAMRATI KOL W/O SHRI BRAJBHAN KOL
                          OCCUPATION: ANGANWADI KARYAKARTA GRAM
                          PANCHAYAT KHADDA KENDRA KRAMANK 3 TEHSIL
                          BEOHARI SHAHDOL GRAM PANCHAYAT KHADDA
                          TEHSIL BEOHARI SHAHDOL DISTRICT SHAHDOL
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI GAURAV TIWARI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                                PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WOMEN AND CHILD
                                DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA
                                VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    THE COLLECTOR SHAHDOL, DISTRICT SHAHDOL
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    PROJECT OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN
                                AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT BEOHARI, DISTRICT
                                SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    TRIPTA    PATEL ANGANWADI KARYAKARTA
                                GRAM     PANCHAYAT   KHADDA     KENDRA
                                KRAMANK-1    TEHSIL  BEOHARI   SHAHDOL
                                DISTRICT SHAHDOL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI PUNEET SHROTI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                           ORDER

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/25/2023 11:05:11 AM 2 By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.02.2021 (Annexure-P/2) whereby services of the petitioner who was working as Anganwadi Karyakarta at Anganwadi Centre Khadda No.3, Village Khadda, were terminated and the charge of the post of Anganwadi Karyakarta was given to respondent No.4 namely Smt. Tripta Patel.

The petitioner is challenging the action of the respondent/authority mainly on the ground that the action taken by the respondent/authority removing the petitioner from the post is purely illegal because neither any enquiry was conducted nor any opportunity of hearing was provided before removing her from service. Shri Tiwari submits that in the guidelines issued on 10.07.2007 in respect of the appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta, the procedure for removal of Anganwadi Karyakarta is also given, under which it is very clearly mentioned that before removal or terminating the services of Anganwadi Karyakarta, an opportunity of hearing is required to be given. He submits that, therefore, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, her services have wrongly been terminated and as such, the impugned order suffers from violation of principle of natural justice and it be set aside.

Considering the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner and perusal of record, it is clear that the petitioner got arrested on 14.11.2020 in an offence of murder of her husband and as such, she remained absent from duty, but thereafter she has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 11.06.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No.4940 of 2021 and after release from jail, she has filed this petition challenging the order impugned whereby her services have been terminated.

As per the guidelines issued by the Women and Child Development Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/25/2023 11:05:11 AM 3 Department framing guidelines with regard to selection and appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta, it is clear that the scheme for introducing the Anganwadi Centre and appointment of Anganwadi Karyakarta to run that Centre is very clear that for the development of women and child in a rural area, the State Government was giving preference to their welfare, therefore, Anganwadi Centres were opened with a specific intention so as to provide primary education to the child of over-sectors or of rural areas with meals. Further, the guidelines for their selection was framed giving preference to the woman to be appointed as Anganwadi Karyakarta should be resident of the area where Anganwadi Centre situates and it also provides that if any serious complaint is made or any complaint with regard to not running the Centre properly showing irresponsible attitude in performing the duties by the Anganwadi Karyakarta, she can be removed from services, although, it is mentioned that opportunity of hearing is required to be provided to Anganwadi Karyakarta. But here in this case, since the Centre was continuously closed as the petitioner was arrested by the police, therefore, the authority had no other option but to appoint a new Anganwadi Karyakarta to run said Anganwadi Centre or to give charge to any woman to run the said Centre.

The petitioner remained in jail for almost 10 months in an offence of Section 302 of IPC and therefore, it is not possible for the authority to give her an opportunity of hearing and as such, her services have been terminated. It is also pertinent to mention here that giving an opportunity to the petitioner would be a futile exercise because facing trial of murder of her husband is a serious offence and it is not acceptable that the petitioner should be allowed to run Centre in such circumstances. In my opinion, the action taken by the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/25/2023 11:05:11 AM 4 respondent/authority is not illegal and as such, no interference in the order passed by the respondent/authority is warranted.

The petition being without any substance, is hereby dismissed.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-