Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 22]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Uma Devi vs State Of H.P And Others on 8 March, 2016

Author: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

Bench: Dharam Chand Chaudhary

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
                                                         CWP(T) No. 14288 of 2008




                                                                                       .
                                                        Date of decision: 8th March, 2016





           Uma Devi                                                             .......Petitioner





                                                       Versus
           State of H.P and others.                                             ...Respondents.




                                                             of
           Coram
           The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge.
           Whether approved for reporting?1 No.
           For the petitioner:
           For the respondents:
                                   rt                 None.
                                                      Mr. Shrawan Dogra, A.G. with Mr.

                                                      Virender Verma, Addl. A.G and
                                                      Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Dy. A.G for
                                                      respondents No. 1 to 3.


                                                      Respondent No. 4 ex-parte.

                   Dharam Chand Chaudhary, Judge. (Oral)

The petitioner aggrieved by the adjustment of respondent No. 4 in newly opened Anganwari Centre, Kuffer, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

"a) That the respondent No. 4 may be directed to supply the transfer order of respondent No. 4 to the applicant and same may be quashed and set aside.
b) That the applicant being the only candidate for the post may be appointed as Anganwari 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:52:53 :::HCHP 2

worker in Village Kuffer tehsil Rajgarh, District Sirmour."

.

2. On creation of Anganwari Centre at Kuffer in Tehsil Rajgarh vide notification, Annexure A-1, the petitioner applied for being appointed as Anganwari of worker in the said centre. She, however, was not called for interview and when came to know that the rt respondent-State has filled-up the post of Anganwari worker by transferring respondent No. 4 from Anganwari Centre, Koti Bhavpa to Kuffer, she has filed this writ petition on the ground that the post of Anganwari worker could have not been filled-up by way of transfer and rather by way of direct recruitment. Therefore, it is claimed that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as Anganwari worker by way of transfer being contrary to the policy framed for appointment of Anganwari worker/helper is not legally sustainable.

3. The response of the respondent-State, in a nut-shell, is that in the guidelines framed by the respondent-State which governs the appointment and other service conditions of an Anganwari Worker, though ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:52:53 :::HCHP 3 an Anganwari worker/helper cannot be transferred from one place to other, however, on the marriage of a .

worker/helper if any vacancy is available in the Anganwari Centre situated at the place of her in-laws, she can be appointed there by way of transfer/adjusted of with the consent of the local Gram Panchayat and subject to the approval of the Director concerned i.e. rt 2nd respondent. Such provisions reads as follows:

"Transfer/adjustment of Anganwadi Worker/Helper within the projects and from one Project to another Project.
Under ICDS scheme there is no provision of transfer of AWW/Helper as these are honorary workers.
However, in the case of marriage of a AWW of Helper, if at the place of her marriage vacancy of an AWW/Helper exist, with the consent of the local Gram Panchayat she would be transferred/adjusted in that Anganwardi Centre with the approval of Director, Social Women & SCs welfare, H.P. All such requests would be routed through CDPO concerned with the following certificates:
1. Certificate of marriage.
2. NOC of Panchayat where adjustment if proposed.
::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:52:53 :::HCHP 4
3. Certificates from concerned CDPO, where vacancy exist, that vacancy is .

available.

Provided that if the transfer/adjustment is within the project the concerned CDPO would be competent to order such adjustments after completing all formalities of listed above."

4. Also that, since respondent No. 4 was married rt in the year 2001 in village Pehan-Kuffer, the place where Anganwari Centre exist, therefore, she has rightly been transferred as per the guidelines ibid and with the consent of Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat and with the approval of competent authority.

5. No-one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner when this petition is called for hearing.

6. On 3rd December, 2015, learned counsel representing the petitioner had sought time to obtain instructions as to whether at this stage, anything is left to be adjudicated upon in this petition on merits or not. On the previous date also, the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for obtaining such instructions, however, learned counsel representing the ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:52:53 :::HCHP 5 petitioner is not present. It appears that the petitioner is no more interested in prosecuting this petition any .

further, as is apparent from Annexure R-3, 'Samjhautanama' annexed by the respondent-State to the reply filed on its behalf. As a matter of fact, the of dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 4 stands amicably settled and the recitals in this document rt further reveal that the petitioner has undertaken not to prosecute the petition any further. It is for this reason;

neither she nor learned counsel representing her has put in appearance. Otherwise also, there is no merit in this petition, for the reason that the competent authority i.e. the Director, Social Justice and Empowerment, the 2nd respondent is competent to transfer an Anganwari worker/helper in terms of Clause-18 of the guidelines reproduced hereinabove. The certificate Annexure R-4 reveals that respondent No. 4 is now married in Village Pehan-Kuffer and her in-laws are permanent resident of that village. The Anganwari Centre is also situated in this village, therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the transfer of respondent No. 4 to ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:52:53 :::HCHP 6 Anganwari Centre, Kuffer is contrary to the guidelines framed by the respondent-State.

.

7. In view of what has been said hereinabove, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, of shall also stand disposed of.



    March 8, 2016
                rt                    (Dharam Chand Chaudhary)
         (naveen)                               Judge









                                        ::: Downloaded on - 15/04/2017 19:52:53 :::HCHP