Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
P Anjulamma vs The State Of Ap on 29 November, 2021
Bench: Ninala Jayasurya
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION No. 614 of 2019
ORDER: (Heard and pronounced through Blue Jeans App (Virtual)
mode, since this mode is adopted on account of prevalence of
COVID-19 pandemic)
This writ petition is filed questioning the action of the 3rd respondent in
rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 16.07.2018 seeking promotion as
Anganwadi Worker vide endorsement No.2018/F2 dated 20.07.2018, as illegal,
arbitrary, violative of the petitioner's rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and
21 of the Constitution of India and also violative of the Memos dated 23.12.1998,
03.12.2010 and 05.01.2012 issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 as also violative of
the law declared by this Court in W.P.No.31374 of 2015 and batch dated
16.11.2015.
2. The petitioner is working as Anganwadi Helper at Gotcheri Village, Guda
Panchayat, Hukumpeta Project, Hukumpeta Mandal, Visakhapatnam District,
pursuant to the proceedings dated 04.11.2015 issued by the 4th respondent. As a
vacancy arose in respect of the post of Anganwadi Worker in the same center in
the month of June, 2017, the petitioner has been discharging both the duties of
Anganwadi Worker as well as Anganwadi Helper. It is the specific case of the
petitioner that she is entitled for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the existing
vacancy, as she is fully qualified and discharging the functions and also belongs to
the same Anganwadi Center and of the same Village. Without considering the
various Memos issued by the competent authority, the case of the petitioner was
rejected.
2
NJS,J
W.P.No.614 of 2019
3. Smt. B. Geetha, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia contends that
the action of the 3rd respondent in rejecting the case of the petitioner is wholly
unsustainable and the same is contrary to the Memos issued by respondent Nos.1
and 2 governing the field of appointments and promotions in respect of Anganwadi
Workers and Helpers. She also contends that the issue with regard to the aspect of
promotion of Anganwadi Helper to the post of Anganwadi Worker fell for
consideration before this Court in W.P.No.31374 of 2015 and batch and the same
were allowed by an order dated 16.11.2015. While drawing the attention of this
Court to the Memos dated 23.12.1998, 03.12.2010 and 05.01.2012, learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that the case of the petitioner, in view of the said
Memos as also in view of the expression of the learned Judge in the above referred
batch of writ petitions, deserves to be considered. She also submits that the
petitioner has been discharging the functions of Anganwadi Helper and also
Anganwadi Worker for the last three years and in such circumstances, the action of
the 3rd respondent in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment as
Anganwadi Worker is not just or tenable.
4. Learned Government Pleader for Women Development and Child Welfare
appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that due to filing of a
complaint by one Smt. S. Subbalakshmi before the Andhra Pradesh Human Rights
Commission (APHRC) and also a writ petition in W.P.No.42327 of 2018, the case
of the petitioner could not be considered. He also submits that the petitioner's case
would be considered, after receipt of appropriate orders in the writ petition
instituted by said Smt. S. Subbalakshmi.
3
NJS,J
W.P.No.614 of 2019
5. This Court has considered the arguments of both sides and perused the
material on record.
6. It is not in dispute that there is a vacancy of Anganwadi Worker in
Hukumpeta Project Center and the petitioner has been discharging the functions of
Anganwadi Helper as also Anganwadi Worker. In one of the Memos dated
23.12.1998 issued by the 1st respondent, on which the learned counsel for the
petitioner places reliance, the relevant portion provides thus:
"5. Appointment of Anganwadi Helpers as Anganwadi Workers:
The CDPOs are directed to see that performance (sic. preference) is
given to the eligible Anganwadi Helpers in selection of Anganwadi
Workers, if the CDPO satisfies the requirement of Anganwadi Worker.
The Project Directors are directed to follow the above instructions
scrupulously and see that no scope is given for any complaint in the
above matters."
7. In the subsequent Memo dated 03.12.2010, the Project Directors were again
directed to fill up the vacancies of Anganwadi Workers with eligible Anganwadi
Helpers and follow the Government Instructions issued in the reference dated
23.12.1998. The said instructions were further directed to be implemented vide
Circular Memo dated 05.01.2012, which reads as follows:
"Office of the Director of Women Development &
Child Welfare, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
Memo No.5771/K3/2006, Dt.05.01.2012.
Sub:- WD&CW Dept., - ICDS - Appointments of AWWS from the Post
of qualified AWHs- Clarification for appointment AWHs as
4
NJS,J
W.P.No.614 of 2019
AWWs - Certain clarifications issued - Reg.
Ref:- 1. Cir.Memo No.20888/K3/94, Dt.09.02.95 of Commissioner
WD &CW Dept., Hyderabad.
2. Memo No.9207/ICDS/A1/98-1, Dt.23-12-98 of the
Secretary to Government, WDCW & DW (ICDS)
Department.
3. G.O.Rt.No.102 Dept., for Women, children, Disabled
and Senior Citizens (ICDS A1) Dt.28.03.2011.
4. Lr.No.475/C/2011, Dt.20.06.2011 from PD DW&CDA,
Nalgonda.
****
The attention of Project Director, DW&CDA, Nalgonda District
is drawn to the reference 1st cited, wherein certain instructions were
issued. The AWW & AWH must be selected from the same villages
where the AWC is located and should be a person acceptable to the
community. This is the most important criteria which should not be
violated.
She must be married women whose family belongs to the
community in the village.
If the post of AWW is vacant, in the same village where AWH is
qualified, she may be considered to be appointed as AWW provided she
has fulfilled the conditions laid down in reference 3rd cited, with the
approval of District Collector concerned.
The qualified AWH is not eligible to be appointed as AWW even
if she is willing to work anywhere in the concerned town, which is in
violation of instructions issued vide reference 1st cited.
Sd/- Anita Rajendra
Director"
8. A conjoint reading of the said Circular Memo Instructions goes to show that
if the post of Anganwadi Worker is vacant in the same village where Anganwadi
Helper is appointed, she may be considered for appointment as Anganwadi Worker
NJS,J
W.P.No.614 of 2019
with the approval of the District Collector concerned, provided she possesses the
requisite qualifications and fulfills the conditions.
9. In W.P.No.31374 of 2015 and batch, the learned Judge had considered the
issues with regard to appointment/promotion of Anganwadi Workers at length. The
challenge in the said cases is to a recruitment notification issued to fill up the posts
of Anganwadi Workers in the respective villages where the petitioners therein were
working as Anganwadi Helpers. It was inter alia contended that when there are
eligible Anganwadi Helpers, there is no justification to resort to open market
recruitment to the post of Anganwadi Workers. The learned Judge, at paras 10
and 11, held as follows:
"10. As noticed above, in the instant case, there are only three
instructions of the State Government governing appointment of
Anganwadi Workers. These three instructions, more particularly, the
last of the instructions, dated 05.01.2012, clearly point out that an
Anganwadi Helper of a village is entitled to be considered for
appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the same village and no further
restriction is imposed. Thus, the restrictions as imposed in Himachal
Pradesh, i.e., consideration of an Anganwadi Helper of the same
Anganwadi Center is not imposed in the State of Andhra Pradesh. I am,
therefore, of the opinion that the principle laid down by the Supreme
Court in the above decision has no application in view of the specific
instructions issued by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
11. As clarified by the learned Assistant Government Pleader,
insofar as recruitment to the post of Anganwadi helpers and Anganwadi
Workers are concerned, though the scheme is evolved by the
Government of India and the financial burden is shared by the Central
NJS,J
W.P.No.614 of 2019
government and the State Governments in the ratio of 75:25, the
recruitment policy is left to be decided by the respective States. Thus,
insofar as the State of Andhra Pradesh is concerned, as evident from the
three circulars relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
restriction is only residency in the concerned village and not the feeder
areas of the respective Anganwadi Centres within the village, Thus, as
long as eligible Anganwadi helpers were available in a village, there is
no justification in resorting to the open market recruitment to fill up the
vacancies of Anganwadi Workers in the respective villages. Said
decision is contrary to the orders of the Government on the subject."
10. The learned Judge in the ultimate analysis of the matter, allowed the batch of
writ petitions and directed the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners
for appointment/promotion as Anganwadi Workers in the respective villages,
subject to their eligibility and suitability in the existing vacancies of the respective
villages. The said judgment, in the opinion of this Court, applies to the case on
hand.
11. Though it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader that in view
of the complaint before the APHRC and also the writ petition filed by one Smt. S.
Subbalakshmi, the case of the petitioner was rejected, this Court is not inclined to
accept the same, in the absence of any order in favour of said S. Subbalakshmi.
Except mentioning the said reason, no material is placed before this Court, by
virtue of which, the respondents are restrained from considering the case of the
petitioner.
12. When there is no dispute with regard to the vacancy in respect of Anganwadi
Worker in the same center in which the petitioner is discharging the functions of
NJS,J
W.P.No.614 of 2019
Anganwadi Helper and with regard to her qualifications and eligibility, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the respondents are not justified in rejecting the
case of the petitioner. In view of the Circular Memos referred to above and also
the judgment of the learned Judge in the aforesaid batch of writ petitions, this
Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
13. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned
endorsement of the 3rd respondent dated 20.07.2018. The respondents are directed
to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Anganwadi Worker in
Gotcheri Village, Guda Panchayat, Hukumpeta Project, Hukumpeta Mandal,
Visakhapatnam District, subject to her fulfilling the requisite educational
qualifications, and pass appropriate orders, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.
14. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand disposed
of.
_______________________
NINALA JAYASURYA, J
29th October, 2021
cbs
NJS,J
W.P.No.614 of 2019
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
Writ Petition No. 614 of 2019
29th October, 2021
cbs
