The petitioner challenged the transfer of a respondent Anganwadi Worker to a center closer to her marriage place than an existing vacancy. The court held that the transfer complied with guidelines and did not violate any legally enforceable right.
Presentation of the petition was dismissed as it had no merit and no violation of guidelines was found.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CWP(T) No. 6119 of 2008
06.10.2010 Present: Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Thakur, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 3.
Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, learned counsel submits that the
matter in issue is squarely covered by a decision rendered by this Court in CWP No. 663 of 2007, titled as Santosh versus State of H.P. and others, decided on 11.11.2008, copy of which is taken on record.
“4. Transfer/Adjustment of the Anganwadi Workers/Workers:
(a) Under ICDS programme there is no provision of transfer of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers as these are honorary workers. However, in the case of marriage of an Anganwadi Worker or Helper, if at the place of her marriage, vacancy of an Anganwadi Workers or Helper exists she would be transferred or adjusted in that Anganwadi Centre.
(b) Request for adjustment/transfer can be made to the Child Development Project Officer on plain papers with certificate of marriage.
-2-
(c) Child Development Project Officer will be the competent authority to order transfer/adjustment of Anganwadi Workers/Helpers within the project and outside project but within the District, the District Programme Officer will be the competent authority to do so. Outside district transfers/adjustments will be done with the approval of Director on the recommendation of the Distt. Programme Officer of the both distts.”
-3-
(Sanjay Karol), Judge. October 6, 2010 (PK)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether transfer of the respondent for marriage at a different center violated guidelines restricting transfer to same district
Whether a legally enforceable right of the petitioner was violated by the transfer
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Santosh versus State of H.P. and othersReferred¶5
CWP No. 663 of 2007, Santosh versus State of H.P. and others
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deathless Beem Krishna
State of H.P.
Union of India
Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh
Respondent No. 4
Sanjay Karol
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
