Madras High Court
R.Kolanthiammal … vs The District Collector on 11 July, 2022
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R.Suresh Kumar
W.P.No.25153 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.07.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SURESH KUMAR
Writ Petition No.25153 of 2018
and W.M.P.Nos.29229, 29230 & 29305 of 2018
R.Kolanthiammal …. Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The District Collector
Dharmapuri District
Dharmapuri.
2.The Child Welfare Officer
Dharmapuri Taluk
Dharmapuri.
3.Tmt.Banu
4.M.Brinda
5.M.Sangeetha
6.M.Prabavathy
7.M.Vasanthi
8.K.Govindammal
9.P.Radha
(R4 to R9 suo-motu impleaded vide
order dated 28.04.2022 made in
W.P.No.25153 of 2018) …. Respondents
1 / 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.25153 of 2018
Prayer : Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for
the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st
respondent in Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.539/A1/2017 dated 09.02.2018 and quash the
same and direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi
Worker at Uruguranahalli Centre, Dharmapuri Taluk and District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy
For Respondents : Mr.V.Arun, Additional Advocate General
Assisted by Mr.R.Kumaravel,
Additional Government Pleader – for R1
Mr.U.M.Ravichandran,
Special Government Pleader – for R2
Mr.Arun Anbumani – for R3
Ms.S.Deepika – for R5
ORDER
The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.539/A1/2017 dated 09.02.2018 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to appoint the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker at Uruguranahalli Centre, Dharmapuri Taluk and District.
2. In Dharmapuri District, at Unguranahalli Panchayat, there is an Anganwadi Centre. In order to appoint Anganwadi worker to the said centre, the first respondent / District Collector called for applications from eligible candidates. Accordingly, eligible candidates including the petitioner and the 2 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 private respondents ie., respondents 3 to 9 had applied for the post. Having verified the certificates and other eligibility criteria of each of the candidates who made such applications, in the context of G.O.No.110, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Scheme dated 14.05.2012, after shortlisting the candidates, interview seems to have been conducted on 12.09.2017 and based on such interview, final selection was made, where the third respondent was selected and appointed as Anganwadi worker at the Centre called Unguranahalli at Dharmapuri District by the orders of the first respondent / District Collector dated 09.02.2018.
3. In this process, the petitioner also made an application and according to her, though she was fully qualified to hold the post and she was not selected and appointed. Therefore, challenging the appointment order issued to the third respondent dated 09.02.2018, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer.
4. When this writ petition was taken up for final hearing sometime in April 2022, the learned Judge had given a direction the official respondents and also to the District Legal Services Authority to issue notice to the other applicants who have subsequently been impleaded as respondents 4 to 9 and to verify whether they are interested in pursuing this matter to get the job or not. 3 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018
5. Pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, the legal services authority having issued notice to the respondents 4 to 9, called for them to verify whether they want to pursue this writ petition by impleading themselves in view of the suo-motu impleadment made by this Court by order dated 28.04.2022. However, except the fifth respondent, the other respondents ie., respondents 4, 6, 8 and 9 seems to have stated to the legal services authority that they do not want to pursue the writ petition.
6. Therefore, the fifth respondent was the only candidate who wanted to pursue the same along with the third respondent who was already a party respondent in the writ petition and accordingly when this writ petition came up for further hearing on 04.07.2022, on behalf of the fifth respondent, a learned counsel entered appearance and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent as well as the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the official respondents, this Court passed the following order.
“ Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, though the District Legal Services authority, Dharmapuri had issued notice to all the six respondents newly impleaded, except the fifth respondent, all others seem to have stated that they do not want to 4 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 pursue the case and only the fifth respondent stated that she wants to pursue the case, for which she wants to engage a counsel.
2. Today when the case is taken up for hearing, Ms.E.Deepika, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the fifth respondent.
3. The third respondent who was selected and appointed in 2018, has been working all along and comparing with the fifth respondent, the third respondent does not belong to the same hamlet, whereas the fifth respondent belongs to the same hamlet. However, comparing with the writ petitioner, the third respondent is located in a lesser distance from the hamlet, whereas the petitioner is located a bit longer distance from the hamlet.
4. In order to sort out this issue, the vacancy position available in the Union where the present center is located is to be ascertained and based on such input to be received and submitted before this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General, further course of action can be decided.
5. Hence, a week's time is sought for by the learned Additional Advocate General to get instructions and report before this Court. Post this writ petition under the caption 'For Orders' on 11.07.2022.”
7. Pursuant to the said order, when the case is taken up for hearing today, the learned Additional Advocate General has received written 5 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 instructions as to the availability of vacancy of Anganwadi worker in the same village / panchayat union for which the learned Additional Advocate General has produced the written instructions given by the District Collector dated 09.07.2022 which reads thus, “ Mrs.Kolandhiammal W/o Kaliappan, a resident of Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri Block, Mittanoolahalli Post Melrajathoppu Village, has filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.25153 / 2018 regarding appointment of Anganwadi Worker for the Unguranahalli Panchayat, Dharmapuri Block.
In the letter 2nd cited, it has been asked to find out whether any vacancy is available for Anganwadi Worker post in any one of the Anganwadi Centres within the block of Unguranahalli Village Panchayat and to send the report the report so as to appraise the fact before the Hon'ble Court on 11.07.2022.
In this regard, I wish to submit before the Hon'ble Court that a center (Uthanoor Centre) in the same Unguranahalli Panchayat has one post vacant uner Anganwadi Worker category.
However, I wish to submit that since Mrs.Banu W/o Gopal, who is presently working in the Unguranahalli Center, whose posting is challenged before the Hon'ble Court is also ineligible as per the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.110, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Department dated 14.05.2012, which states 6 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 “the applicant should be the resident of the same hamlet. If no eligible / suitable candidate from the same hamlet is available; the candidate from the neighbouring hamlets of the same panchayat of the particular center shall be considered. Even then, eligible / suitable candidates are not available, the candidates from the neighbouring panchayats located within 10 Kms shall be considered for the appointment of anganwadi worker.” I wish to inform that Mrs.Banu belong to Mittanoolahalli panchayat, which lies 5 kms away from the Ungaranahalli Panchayat.
Therefore, considering Mrs.Banu in the above vacant post will be against the instructions given in the said G.O., as few eligible hands are already available in the same panchayat.
Anganwadi Worker Vacant Details
S.No District Block Panchayat Centre
1 Dharmapuri Dharmapuri Ungaranahalli Uthanoor
I request you appraise the above fact before the Hon'ble Court.
District Collector Dharmapuri”
8. Relying upon this instructions, the learned Additional Advocate General would contend that, insofar as the selection made in favour of the petitioner for the post of Anganwadi Worker at the said Centre viz., Ungaranahalli was against the norms prescribed in this regard by G.O.No.110 Social Welfare and Nutritious 7 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 Meal Programme Department dated 14.05.2012. Therefore according to him, the said selection shall not stand in the legal scrutiny.
9. He would also submit that, in order to give answer to the query raised by this Court the post at a centre called Uthanoor in the same Panchayat Union ie., Ungaranahalli is vacant due to the transfer of the existing incumbent from Uthanoor.
10. However, Mr.Arun Anbumani learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that, only pursuant to the applications called for by the District Collector, the third respondent being one of the eligible candidates made the application and after following the procedure including attending the interview, the third respondent was selected and appointed by order dated 09.02.2018. Pursuant to the appointment, the third respondent has been working all along for more than four years continuously and therefore at this length of time, the appointment of the third respondent cannot be disturbed.
11. He would also submit that, insofar as the interpretation of Clause 2.8 of the G.O.No.110 is concerned, the same cannot be put against the third respondent as she is otherwise eligible as she belongs to the same area ie., within 10 Kms radius and merely because she does not belong to the same 8 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 hamlet, the most eligible candidate like the third respondent cannot be brushed aside. He further submits that, the words 'eligible / suitable candidates' mentioned in Clause 2.8 under the heading 'Residency' is nothing but the eligible and suitable candidates mentioned in G.O.No.110 and not beyond the same.
12. He would also point out that, under Clause 2.3 of the G.O.No.110 under the head 'Transferring Authority', the District Collector is vested with the power to transfer the Anganwadi worker except in Chennai, that means, the post of Anganwadi Worker is transferable post and if that being so, there is absolutely no sanctity under Clause 2.8 viz., 'Residency' if at all the residency rule has to be followed – it can only be treated as directory and not mandatory.
13. He would also submit that, if ultimately this Court comes to the conclusion that, the appointment made against the third respondent is to be interfered with, the third respondent can be accommodated in any other Anganwadi Centre where the post is kept vacant for which he also relies upon today's instructions received and submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General, where one centre of the said Panchayat Union is still vacant due to transfer of the incumbent and in this context the learned counsel for the third respondent relies on a decision of this Court in “K.Lakshmi -vs- The District Collector of Cuddalore” in W.A.No.2728 of 2012 dated 31.07.2017. 9 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018
14. On the other hand, Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, if the 'Residency' rule viz., Clause 2.8 is to be strictly construed, it is not only the petitioner, but also the third respondent also is ineligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker in that particular centre, where the third respondent is now been appointed through the impugned order. Therefore, if the petitioner is to be treated as non- preferential candidate because of the distance between centre and the residence of the petitioner, the same yardstick would be applicable to the third respondent also and if ultimately this Court comes to the conclusion that, the petitioner as well as the third respondent, comparing with the fifth respondent are not preferable candidates for selection and appointment, the fate to be faced by the third respondent can also be faced by the petitioner. By thus, the petitioner also can be accommodated in any other centre, where the post is kept vacant.
15. The learned counsel for the fifth respondent would submit that, it has come to light that the fifth respondent was the most preferential candidate at the time of making the appointment, as she belongs to the same hamlet. Therefore, without any plausible reason, her candidature has been rejected, only in order to accommodate the third respondent. Therefore, the third respondent's appointment since is unlawful or illegal for whatever reason and if the third respondent's appointment is done away, in that post naturally the fifth 10 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 respondent has to be selected and appointed. Therefore, she seeks the indulgence of this Court to give a consequential direction to the respondents to select and appoint the fifth respondent in the centre, where through the impugned order the third respondent has been appointed.
16. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for all the parties and have perused the materials placed on record.
17. In order to avoid this kind of controversies , the Government thought it fit to issue a Government Order in G.O.No.110, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programe dated 14.05.2012, where, under the heading 'Anganwadi Worker' several mandatory guidelines have been given, out of which two conditions are essential for consideration of the issue raised before this Court in this writ petition. The first one is condition 2.3 viz., 'Transferring Authority' which reads thus, “2.3. Transferring Authority The District Collector is the transferring authority for the post of Anganwadi Worker except Chennai District. The Commissioner / Director Department of Integrated Child Development Services Scheme is the Transferring Authority for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Chennai District.”
18. The other Condition 2.8 under the heading 'Residency' reads thus, 11 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 “2.8. Residency The Government direct that the applicant should be the resident of the same hamlet. If no eligible / suitable candidate from the same hamlet is available, the candidates from the neighbouring hamlets of the same panchayat of the particular centre shall be considered. Even then, eligible / suitable candidates are not available, the candidates from the neighbouring panchayats located within 10 Kms shall be considered for the appointment of Anganwadi worker.
In respect of Anganwadi centres in the Municipality / Corporation area, the applicant residing in the same ward shall be considered. If no eligible / suitable candidate from the same ward is available, the candidates from the nearby ward shall be considered. Even then the eligible candidates are not available, candidates from the Division shall be considered for appointment of Anganwadi worker.”
19. The condition 2.8 viz., 'Residency' is heavily relied upon by the petitioner, official respondents as well as the fifth respondent. In condition 2.8, it has been made clear that the applicant should be the resident of the same hamlet. If further states that if no eligible or suitable candidate from the same hamlet is available, the candidates from neighbouring hamlet of the same Panchayat of the particular centre shall be considered. It further states that, 12 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 even then if eligible / suitable candidates are not available, the candidates from the neighbouring Panchayat located within 10 Kms shall be considered for the appointment of Anganwadi worker.
20. Therefore, preference is in three layer. In the first layer, the candidates belonging to the same hamlet, where the Anganwadi Centre is located may be given preference. In the second layer, if no such eligible candidate is available in the same hamlet, then only the authorities can go for candidates belonging to other hamlet in the same village. In the third layer, only if no such first and second layer eligible candidates are available, then only the candidates belonging to other villages within the maximum 10 Kms radius from the centre can be given a chance.
21. Here in the case in hand, the fifth respondent belongs to the same hamlet. Therefore, in the first layer itself since the fifth respondent comes, the official respondents ought to have selected only the fifth respondent. But, for no plausible reason, her candidature seems to have been rejected and the third respondent was selected and appointed through the impugned order.
22. Insofar as the third respondent and the petitioner are concerned, though the initial lis was between them, after the distance between the centre 13 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 and residence of third respondent and fifth respondent were measured, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the third respondent's residence is 3 Kms away from the centre, whereas the residence of the petitioner is 5 Kms away from the centre.
23. In comparison with the third respondent and the petitioner, may be the third respondent will be the preferable candidate under the second layer, provided if there is no eligible candidates in the same hamlet. However, in the case in hand, since the fifth respondent is available in the same hamlet at first layer itself she should have been picked up, selected and appointed. But, for the reasons best known to the official respondents, they have not done so and they only appointed the third respondent for which absolutely there is no justification as that selection and appointment will go or run contrary to the mandatory directions given by the Government in Clause 2.8 of the said Government Order viz., 'Residency'.
24. Whether the condition 2.8 should be construed as mandatory one or not is concerned, that issue is no more res integra as at least two Division Benches of this Court have reiterated the said position. In the first judgment, in W.A.No.792 of 2012 in the matter of “Secretary to Government -Vs- M.Muthulakshmi and another” dated 22.03.2017, a Division Bench of this 14 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 Court, having considered the legal position in this aspect elaborately has held as follows, “ 4.The learned Government Advocate representing the respondents 1 to 3 has in the course of his arguments produced the particulars relating to the candidates participated in the selection for the post in question. A reading of the same reveals that the fourth respondentJesinda passed XII Standard Examination and has been residing in Michelpattinam Post, Mahindi Panchayat, within different Mudukulathoor Panchayat and was the women self-help group member and was employed in a Co-operative Bank at Michelpattinam, whereas the petitioner herein has equally passed XII Standard examination and has completed one year Nursery Teacher Training Course and employed in Vivekananda Kendra Palarpalli for two years in the same Village, she is also one of the Members of self-help group in Mudukulathoor Panchayat and has been residing in the same Village. The above particulars no doubt would go to show that the petitioner is more qualified to the post of Paniyalar in Anganvadi Centre, she having possessed not only equal educational qualification and passed examinations and above all, has been residing in the same 15 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 Village, where the Anganvadi Centre is situated, which is one of the pre-conditions for selection to the post as per the advertisement notifying applications. But, there is no reason assigned as to why the petitioner was denied employment and the fourth respondent was selected on preferential basis. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at this juncture has drawn the attention of this Court to the order passed by this Court in W.P. (MD) No.10548 of 2008, as confirmed in W.A.(MD) No.588 of 2009 [P.Latha Vs. K.Vadivukkarasi and two others], wherein a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has confirmed the order of the learned Brother Judge, who was pleased to set aside the earlier selection on similar ground. The Division Bench of this Court considering the qualification of the writ petitioner and also considering the fact that she is a resident of the same hamlet, was of the view that the appointment of the respondent therein warranted interference and accordingly set aside the appointment and directed the appointment of the writ petitioner therein in the place of the third respondent therein.
5. Applying the same view, this Court is inclined to set aside the appointment of the fourth respondent with further direction issued to the first 16 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 respondent to appoint the petitioner in the place of the fourth respondent.
6. In the result, the appointment of the fourth respondent as Staff (Paniyalar) in Anganvadi Centre at Muthuramalingapurampatti Village, Mudukulathoor Taluk, is set aside, with further direction issued to the first respondent to appoint the petitioner to the same post. The above exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.”
92. A perusal of the above order would clearly show that the fourth respondent (Ms.R.Nagajothi) was residing in the same village, where the Anganvadi Centre is situated (i.e. within three kilometers) whereas the appellant (Ms.Jesinda) was not residing in the same village and the distance between the noon meal centre and her residence is more than three kilometres but within ten kilometres. In the earlier part of our judgement, we have upheld the validity of G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme Department, dated 18.08.2010 stipulating distance criterion i.e., the distance between the noon meal centre and the residence of the candidates should be within 3 kilometers.
93. In the light of the above discussion and decision, we 17 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 are of the view that the appellant (Ms.Jesinda) has not made a case warranting interferences with the order of the Writ Court dated 11.11.2014, passed in W.P.(MD)No.3398 of 2010. There is no merit in this appeal. Hence, W.P. (MD)No.3398 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed and accordingly DISMISSED.”
25. The second Division Bench judgment is in W.A.No.2728 of 2012 dated 31.07.2017 in the matter of “K.Lakshmi -Vs- The District Collector and another”, where also the Division Bench, having considered Clause 4.8 in G.O.Ms.110 which is the mandatory condition to be applied for Anganwadi Helper and pari materia to the relavant mandatory instruction as Clause 2.8 in the same Government Order, which would apply for Anganwadi Worker, has held as follows, “ 6. Further, Clause 4.8 in G.O.(Ms)No.110, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW7) Department, dated 14.5.2012, specifically provides for Residency and it reads as under:
"The Government direct that the applicant should be the resident of the same hamlet. If no suitable/eligible candidate from the same hamlet is available, the candidates from the neighbouring hamlets of the same panchayat of the particular centre shall be considered. Even then, the eligible candidates are not available the candidates from the neighbouring panchayats located within 10 kms.18 / 28
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 shall be considered for the appointment of Anganwadi Helper.
In respect of Anganwadi Centres in the Municipality/Corporation area, the applicant residing in the same ward shall be considered. If no eligible candidate from the same ward is available, the candidates from nearby ward shall be considered. Even then the eligible candidates are not available candidates from the Division shall be considered for appointment of Anganwadi Helper."
7. A reading of the above would disclose that the candidate should be the resident of the same Village and only if no candidate, who is resident of the same village, is available, eligible candidates from the neighbourhood village can be considered for appointment.
8. In the case on hand, the appellant is the resident of Nanjalur village. But, the third respondent was not the resident of Nanjalur village, but, she was a resident of Athipattu-Alampadi Village, which is 15 kms away from the Anganwadi Centre, at the time of her appointment. However, according to the second respondent, the third respondent had shifted her residence, after her appointment, which is within five kilometres of the Anganwadi Centre.
9. Though the learned Special Government Pleader relied 19 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 upon G.O.Ms.No.163, Social Welfare and Nutritious Meal Programme (SW2) Department dated 18.8.2010, since the said Government Order relates to Noon Meal workers and the case on hand relates to Anganwadi workers, the same is not applicable to the instant case.
10. Further, the reason stated by the second respondent in their counter for not considering the appellant for appointment that the appellant did not perform well in the interview appears to be incredible, when the fact remains that no mark has been prescribed in the Guidelines, for the candidates to be obtained in the interview to qualify themselves for appointment.
11. For the reasons stated in the preceding paragraphs, it is apparent that the appointment of the third respondent is contrary to the norms prescribed in the Guidelines for appointment and that the above fact has not been taken note of by the learned single Judge. Therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain the order of the learned single Judge and accordingly, it is set aside. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to appoint the appellant, in the place of the third respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, we make it clear that the Government is at liberty to accommodate the third respondent elsewhere.
12. The writ appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
27. On reading of the above two Division Bench judgments, it has become 20 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 clear that, the instructions given by way of Rule in G.O.No.110 referred to above, were treated as mandatory and not directory. However it is to be noted that, under instruction 2.3 with the heading 'Transferring Authority', the District Collector is vested with the power to transfer the Anganwadi Worker, which means the post of Anganwadi Worker is a transferable post.
28. If it is to be construed as a transferable post, what is the relevancy or sanctity attached to Rule 2.8 is concerned, whether it has been mandated that the candidate belongs to the same hamlet should be given first preference and its rigour would whittle down in case if the post is a transferable one.
29. However, the very purpose of Clause 2.8 as well as Clause 2.3 of G.O.No.110 has to be looked into. In that process, this Court feels that, at the time of calling for application for any Anganwadi worker post for any Anganwadi Centre, the applications would be called for from eligible candidates not restricted with the same hamlet or same village, the reason being that, if no eligible candidates are available in the same hamlet or same village, necessarily the selecting and appointing authority has to go for other villages within the radius of 10 Kms. Therefore, normally at the time of calling of applications, this rule is not insisted or would not be insisted in the notification calling applications. In response to such notifications, when applications are filed by someone, that 21 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 would be scrutinized and shortlisted by the authorities concerned and after shortlisting the same, during the selection process, first they must look into Clause 2.8, whether any eligible candidates belonging to the same halmet are available. If even one eligible candidate belongs to the same hamlet is available in the first layer, then such candidate should be given preference and selection must be made and appointment must be given. Assuming there are more than one eligible candidates belonging to the same hamlet available, then among them who will be the most preferable candidate based on merits can be evaluated by way of conducting interview or any other method adopted by the respondents and accordingly the most suitable candidate belonging to the same hamlet must be selected and appointed.
30. Only in the absence of any eligible candidates in the same hamlet, the layer can go further for other eligible candidates in the same village from different hamlet. Even then, if there is no eligible candidate in the second layer, then they can go for any eligible candidates within 10 Kms radius. But, in each and every layer if there are more than one candidate, among them inter-se merit should be evaluated by conducting interview or any other method. 22 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018
31. Once such selection and appointment is made, then the candidate can seek for transfer which is possible under Clause 2.3 of the Government Order under which the power is vested with the District Collector to give transfer.
32. If we strictly construe Clause 2.8 as mandatory guideline, there must be a purpose behind it because, since Anganwadi centres are meant for very young children and in order to nurture them, a woman worker belongs to the same hamlet preferably or at least from the same village shall be the most suitable person. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the Anganwadi worker to travel all the way to reach the centre, by which time there may be some chaos and confusion among the young children as they would have been let in the centre by their parents at early hours.
33. When that being so, such kind of Anganwadi worker's selection and appointment cannot be transferable in normal circumstances for any other reasons. But, in one situation where the Anganwadi worker being a woman having been selected and appointed in a centre gets married and after marriage naturally the woman has to go to her matrimonial home, which may be located away from the centre. In that case, if a request for transfer is made to the authorities concerned ie., the District Collector, only in such kind of cases due to the compulsion as to the woman has to join her spouse in the matrimonial home, 23 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 such kind of transfer, as an only exception, can be considered and granted.
34. Therefore, the transfer power vested with the District Collector under Clause 2.3 shall not be used for any normal circumstances except the one circumstance which has been discussed herein above.
35. Now turning to the present case, since that Rule 2.8 is a mandatory one, the selection and appointment made in favour of the third respondent through the impugned order cannot be sustained and therefore it is liable to be interfered with. In that place, since the fifth respondent had already been interviewed, who was one among the applicants and she belongs to the same hamlet, she should have been selected and appointed. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to give such a direction to the official respondents to appoint the fifth respondent in the Centre, which is in question, as Anganwadi Worker.
36. Insofar as the fate of the third respondent and also the plea made by the petitioner are concerned, the learned Additional Advocate General, by written instructions has submitted that, one more centre in the same village at Uthanoor is still available due to the transfer of the incumbent. Therefore, in that centre if the official respondents wish to select and appoint the third respondent, it is open to the official respondents to do the same, for which the order of this Court 24 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 does not stand in the way.
37. Insofar as the petitioner's case is concerned, since she belongs to a village which is 5 kms away from the centre in question, whereas the third respondent belongs to a village which is 3 Kms away from the centre, the gesture to be shown to the third respondent can also be extended to the petitioner and again in this context also, it is open to the official respondents to show that gesture.
38. In this context, since the petitioner as well as the third respondent have already crossed 35 years of age ie., maximum age for getting entry into the post of Anganwadi Worker, one time age relaxation as a special case for these two people can be given by the official respondents and by giving such relaxation, either by way of identifying the vacancy like Uthanoor, these two people can be accommodated or if any new centres, where vacancies are available in the same Panchayat Union, where also the candidature of the petitioner and the third respondent can be considered. However, this purely depends upon the discretion of the official respondents.
39. In that view of the matter, as has been discussed above this Court is 25 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 inclined to dispose of this writ petition with the following order.
● That the impugned order passed by the first respondent in Sa.Mu.Na.Ka.No.539/A1/2017 dated 09.02.2018 is hereby set aside.
● As a sequel, there shall be a direction to the official respondents to select the fifth respondent as Anganwadi Worker at the Anganwadi Centre called Ungaranahalli Village, Dharmapuri District within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
● There shall also be a direction to the official respondents to consider the candidature of the third respondent as well as the petitioner to accommodate in any available Anganwadi Centres by giving the age relaxation to both of them and in this regard such consideration is purely the discretion of the official respondents, where this Court does not mandate anything, as that kind of direction mandating the 26 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 official respondents to select and appoint the petitioner and the third respondent will run contra to the mandatory guidelines in Clause 2.8 of G.O.No.110.
40. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.07.2022 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No KST To
1.The District Collector Dharmapuri District Dharmapuri.
2.The Child Welfare Officer Dharmapuri Taluk Dharmapuri.
27 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.25153 of 2018 R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
KST W.P.No. 25153 of 2018 11.07.2022 28 / 28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis