Jatinder Kaur vs State of Haryana

Augustine George Masih, J.—Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of the impugned order dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-7), vide which the petitioner was given an option to resign from one post of either Anganwadi Worker or as Member of the Block Samiti, Radaur, failing which her services would be deemed to have been terminated from the post of Anganwadi Worker. Challenge has also been posed to the order dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P-12), vide which her services have been dispensed with of an Anganwadi Worker. Petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker in the year 1988. She continued on the said post when in the elections to the Block Samiti Member, which were held in July, 2010, petitioner participated and was elected as such. She had been granted permission to file nominations for contesting elections vide letter dated 28.11.1994. Subsequently, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-7), vide which she was called upon to retain any of the two posts either of an Anganwadi Worker or as a Member of the Block Samiti, Radaur.

Petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No. 12998 of 2012, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.07.2012 by giving liberty to the petitioner to file a representation stating therein that the post of an Anganwadi Worker was not a civil post as the petitioner had relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Ameerbi and Others, and Anokh Singh Vs. Punjab State Election Commission, decided on 29.10.2010. The said representation of the petitioner was considered by the Director General Women and Child Development Department, Haryana and vide order dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P-12) although holding the post of an Anganwadi Worker to be not a civil post, proceeded to hold that the duty of an Anganwadi Worker was for the welfare of the people such as health check-up, preschool activity, referral services, nutrition education and supplementary nutrition programme, which would be in conflict with the responsibilities of a Member Block Samiti and, therefore, as the petitioner had not opted for resigning from the post of a Member Block Samiti, her services were terminated. These orders have been challenged by the petitioner i.e. dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure P-7) and dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P-12) by way of the present writ petition.

It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that once the post of an Anganwadi Worker is held to be not a civil post, there is no bar to the petitioner continuing with the two posts simultaneously as a Member Block Samiti, Radaur. There is no assertion in the impugned orders that because of the petitioner holding both the posts, the work of any of the posts being adversely affected and, therefore, the impugned orders cannot sustain.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the work of an Anganwadi Worker is a continuous work, which cannot be ignored as it is primarily a social work where pre-school education and health care is to be taken care of by the Anganwadi Worker. An Anganwadi Worker also performs the duties of health check-up, referral services, nutrition education and supplementary nutrition programme, which is a daily responsibility and cannot be ignored. If the work of the Member Block Samiti is to be performed, there is no doubt that it would have adverse impact on the duties and responsibilities, which the petitioner is expected to perform as an Anganwadi Worker. His contention is that Integrated Child and Development Scheme is run by the funds, which are received from the Central Government and the Anganwadi Workers are appointed under the said scheme. The mandate and the directions issued by the Central Government are, therefore, required to be followed and on the basis of those guidelines/directions, petitioner cannot be allowed to continue on the two posts. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the letter dated 07.02.2012 issued by the Government of India. On the basis of the said letter, he contends that the impugned orders are in accordance with law. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Bali Devi Vs. State of Haryana and Others, titled as Smt. Bali Devi v. State of Haryana and others, decided on 28.10.2013, where such a plea, as in the present case, has been negated. Prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of the case, I am of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is fully covered against her by the judgment in Bali Devi''s case (supra).

The arguments, which have been raised by the counsel for the petitioner, have been dealt with in detail and while reproducing the letter dated 07.02.2012 issued by the Government of India, the Hon''ble Court, in para. 5 onwards, has held as follows:-

"5. In Som Lal Vs. Vijay Laxmi and Others, relied upon by the petitioner is a case distinguishable on facts. In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether a salaried employee of any local authority, statutory corporation or Board or a cooperative society can be held to hold an office of profit u/s 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, and therefore a disqualification has been answered in the negative. Such person is entitled to contest Panchayat elections. The facts were that a whole time employee of the Marketing Committee was elected as Sarpanch of a Panchayat. The Supreme Court held that such election could not be set aside on the ground that the litigant was holding an office of profit. The relationship of the elected Sarpanch with his employer is governed by the rules of service and the terms and conditions of employment, if any, which may or may not permit dual charge. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to continue to serve as an Anganwadi Worker merely because a certificate was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Bapoli to the petitioner on 13.6.2010 clearing the way to contest Gram Panchayat elections. The certificate was in contradiction of the Government of India circular issued in ICDS Scheme and was prior to point of time. It has been observed by Government of India in its letter dated 7.2.2012 as under:-

Government of India Ministry of Women and Child Development Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi - 110001 Dated 7th February 2012

To

The Principal Secretary, Women and Child Development Deptt., Government of Haryana, Room No. 38, 7th Floor, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Sector 17, CHANDIGARH-160017.

Subject: Anganwadi Workers/Helpers to contest the Local Bodies/Panchayat Election - clarification regarding.

Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer your letter No. 3860/CD-1/WCD/2012 dated 24th January, 2012 on the subject mentioned above and to say that the Government of India had issued guidelines in this regard vide Ministry''s letter of even number 26th May 2010 read with Corrigendum of even number dated 4.6.2010, stating that in case the AWW/AWH win an election, it may not be appropriate for her to discharge, concurrently, duties both in the capacity of an elected member of panchayat/local body as well as an AWW/AWH under the ICDS Scheme. This would necessarily take her away from the core activities and would affect the delivery of the services adversely under the ICDS Scheme.

Govt. of Haryana is therefore requested to defend the case appropriately in view of the GOI guidelines and also take further legal recourse.

Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Jatinder Kaur) Under Secretary to the Government of India.

The Government of India decision dated 7.2.2012 (R-3) reveals in its text two vitally important dates. The letter/guidelines of the Government of India advise against concurrent holding of an elected office and of an Anganwadi Worker simultaneously are dated 26.5.2010. The corrigendum was issued by Government of India in the Ministry of Women and Child Development, New Delhi on 4.6.2010. The certificate heavily relied upon by the petitioner (P-1) is dated 13.6.2010. It was obviously issued in ignorance of the law and was thus without legal sanctity and clearly in excess of jurisdiction. It was at best a private act or personal opinion expressed and not legally binding on ICDS Scheme and its operators. It would have been proper for the Child Development and Project Officer, Bapoli not to have written directly to the petitioner but instead and before acting ought to have sought advice and guidance from superiors in government charged with the duty of implementation of the ICDS Scheme. The impugned order of termination cannot be faulted on this account and appears legal and valid and is, therefore, upheld. It is in consonance with the GOI directives. It is clarified that this order would have no effect on the petitioner as an elected Sarpanch.

For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this petition which is ordered to stand dismissed. No costs."

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.