Gujarat High Court
Daxaben Jethabhai Vankar vs State Of Gujarat on 13 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15708/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15708 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DAXABEN JETHABHAI VANKAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.SUBHASH G BAROT(2619) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. AKASH CHHAYA, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
Date : 13/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These facts are not in dispute. In august, 2007, the Petitioner
had applied for the post of Anganwadi worker in the village of
Khedbrahma. The application was accepted by the authorities
and she was given an order of appointment on 05.03.2008.
2. The Petitioner thereafter continued working as an Anganwadi
worker in Khedbrahma, obviously, the order of appointment was
issued after the authorities were satisfied that she satisfied all
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15708/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
the requirements for being appointed as an Anganwadi worker
including the question as whether she was resident of
Khedbrahma.
3. However, on 02.06.2012, it appears that Rohitkumar N. Vankar
gave a complaint to the authorities stating that the Petitioner
had wrongfully obtained an appointment and she was not
resident of Khedbrahma. This objection was entertained and 5
years thereafter by the impugned order dated 03.07.2017, the
service of the Petitioner was terminated. The Petitioner is
therefore, before this Court challenging the said order of
termination.
4. It is a case of the Petitioner that she was married to the
complainant Rohitkumar N. Vankar in the year 2005 and she
did initially resides with him at Vadali however since she was
harased for dowry she was constrained to file a complaint and
returned to her parents' house which was at khedbrahma. She
contends that as a matter of fact, the divorce deed was also
signed and as a consequence the marriage also came to an end.
It is contended that the respondents could not have entertained
the complaint of her estranged husband and could not have
terminated the services on the ground that she was not a
resident of Khedbrahma. It is highlighted that the complaint
lodged by her to the Police vide Annexure - B by itself clearly
indicated that she was a resident of Khedbrahma and she was
making a complaint about her husband's conduct while she was
residing there at Vadali. It is submitted that since the Petitioner
had broken up with her husband and was residing at
Khedbrahma, the contention of the authorities that she would
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15708/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
have to be considered as a resident of Vadali due to her
marriage, do not be accepted.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on the other
hand contents that the fact that the Petitioner was married and
was staying in Vadali was not in dispute and this would
therefore, disentitle her to be appointed as an Anganwadi
worker at Khedbrahma. Learned Counsel Mr. Munshaw on the
other hand sought to justify the order of termination by raising
various contentions which are narrated in its reply. In my view,
non of the contentions raised by the respondent can be taken
into consideration having regard to the fact that the Petitioner
did work for continuous period of 9 years and that by itself
would indicate that she was a permanent resident of
Khedbrahma. In my view, the respondent could not have
entertain the complaint as it had been raised by the estrange
husband of the Petitioner and this action on their part would
have to be depreciated having regard to the fact that the
authorities are expected to help the cause of women who has
been separated from her husband.
6. It is not in dispute that the complainant who raised a grievance
regarding the appointment of the Petitioner was none other
than, the estranged husband of the Petitioner. Admittedly, this
complaint was lodged in the year 2012 i.e. 4 years after the
Petitioner was appointed in the year 2008 and the authorities
have waited for five more year i.e. till 2017 to terminate the
services. This set of facts by themselves go to show that from
2008 till 2017 i.e. for a period of 9 years, the Petitioner did work
at Khedbrahma. The material on record including the complaint
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15708/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/08/2025
undefined
produced at Annexure -D clearly indicate that there was marital
discord between the Petitioner and the complainant Rohitkumar
N. Vankar and the complaint also indicates that she was a
resident of Khedbrahma. In the light of these indisputable facts,
the order of termination of the Petitioner on the ground that she
was not a resident of Khedbrahma cannot be accepted.
7. The order of termination has therefore quashed and the writ
petition is allowed. As a consequence, the Petitioner shall be
reinstate as an Anganwadi worker and permitted to discharge
her duties. This action be undertaken complete within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Direct service is permitted.
8. Rule is made absolute.
(NSSG,J)
Mehul Desai
