Smt. Sonagi Devi vs District Magistrate and Others

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Since the common question of fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they have been taken up together and decided by a common judgment.

This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that the Petitioner may be allowed to continue on the post of Anganwari Karyakatri even though she was elected as Gram Pradhan.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Petitioner participated in the election proceedings and she was elected as Gram Pradhan but after the election various Anganbari Female Workers continued on their posts. The Government proceeded to issue a Government Order dated 20th December, 2000 whereby it was directed that such candidates who have been elected as Gram Pradhan may submit their resignations. Thereafter, the Petitioner did not submit any resignation. She was issued a show cause notice on 04-12-2001 whereby the Petitioner was restrained to work on the post of Anganbari Karyakatri with the condition that she can remain in service either of one post. The Petitioner submitted her reply on 01-02-2002. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed writ petition No. 16763 of 2002 before this Court in which an interim order has been passed. But despite the knowledge of the Court''s order, Respondent No. 3 i.e. Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Baitalpur, Deoria, vide his order dated 24-05-2002, has terminated the service of the Petitioner.

Lastly, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner may be allowed to continue on the post of Anganwari Karyakatri with all consequential benefits. It has also been submitted that the Petitioner is not holding any salaried post and she is only getting the honorarium for the said post and, therefore, she cannot be treated as government employee.

Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in the case of Sheela Devi and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in 2010 ADJ 96 it has been held that the post of Anganbari Karyakatri is a civil post and the person holding such post is a civil servant. It is further submitted that the Petitioner cannot perform two duties or hold two posts at a time as she was a government servant and it is incumbent upon her to have resigned prior to the election on post of Gram Pradhan. Even after being elected on the said post, she continued and thereafter the Government on its wisdom took a decision that such persons who are continuing in service elected on the post of Gram Pradhan must be made to resign, therefore, the Petitioner has no right to hold the post in question.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and gone through the record.

The Petitioner was admittedly appointed on the post of female Anganwari Karyakatri and later on she was elected as Gram Pradhan but she did not submit her resignation. The G.O. dated 20-12-2000 was issued, in pursuance thereof, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 04-12-2001 to resign from the said post to which the Petitioner has replied on 01-02-2002 after receiving the reply of the Petitioner, the services of the Petitioner has been dispensed with by order dated 24-05-2002.

The question to be considered by this Court is that as to whether the Petitioner has any right to continue on the post of Anganbari Karyakatri after being elected on the post of Gram Pradhan. Once she was holding the office of public servant, it was incumbent upon her to submit her resignation although, she did not submit her resignation, therefore, her services automatically come to an end and she cannot be permitted to hold two posts at a time. She cannot be permitted to perform public services as well as public duties and such type of job which will certainly affect the education of the children. A civil servant looses her right to continue in service after being elected.

Both the writ petitions are devoid of merit and they are accordingly dismissed.