Quashed

Ampilly L. v. Director of Social Justice

Kerala HC7 Mar 2018WP(C)/13143/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order cancelling her regular appointment as an Anganawady Worker and appointing a more senior respondent. The court held the order violated natural justice principles due to the lack of notice. It quashed Ext.P3 order and directed the position officer to decide after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P3 order. Directed 1st respondent to decide after hearing parties within two months. Petitioner allowed to continue in the Anganwadi.

Ampilly L. Vs Director of Social Justice — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 13143 of 2016

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AMPILLY L., ANGANWADY WORKER, ANGANAWADY NO. 35,KUREEPALLY, MUKHATHALA ADDITIONAL PROJECT OFFICE, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN 691 504.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.V.VARGHESE SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND SMT.K.N.REMYA SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶11

2. DISTRICT SOCIAL JUSTICE OFFICER, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM - 691 001.

¶12

3. ADDITIONAL CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, MUKHATHALA ADDITIONAL PROJECT OFFICE, PERUMPUZHA, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 504.

¶13

4. K.RADHAMONY AMMA, UNDER ORDERS OF POSTING AS ANGANWADY WORKER, ANGANAWADY NO. 35, KUREEPALLY, MUKHATHALA ADDITIONAL PROJECT OFFICE, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 504.

¶14

R1-R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.MARY BEENA JOSEPH R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 13143 of 2016 (P)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1. COPY OF LETTER NO.9313/B1/1007/SWD DATED 25/8/2007 ADDRESSED TO THE IST RESPONDENT. P2. COPY OF HTE ORDER NO.ICDSMA/89/2012/CDPO DATED 18.12.13 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶21

P3. COPY OF ORDER NO.NIL DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

R4(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST DATED NIL R4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2011

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

14.3.2018

P.V.ASHA J.

W.P.(C).No.13143 of 2016

¶30

------------------------------------- Dated this the 7^th day of March, 2018

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Petitioner, who has been working as an

¶33

Anganawady Worker from 2004 onwards under the Mukhathala Project Office, is challenging Ext.P3 order, by which regular appointment given to her as per Ext.P2 order was cancelled appointing the

¶34

4^th respondent in her place.

¶35

The petitioner was appointed as

¶36

Anganawady Worker in the year 2004 in Mukhathala Project Office in Kollam District. She was posted

¶37

in the Balavady started in Ward No.5 of Elampalloor Grama Panchayat under the Sarvasiksha Abhiyan Project. When Balavadies were taken over

¶38

by Government, as per Ext.P1 order in 2007,

¶39

W.P.(C).No.13143 of 2016

¶40

¶41

petitioner was permitted to continue as

¶42

Anganawady Worker in Anganawady No.39 in Elampalloor Grama Panchayat. It is stated that she worked in various Anganawadies under the Mukhathala Project, on transfer. Whileso, the

¶43

Child Development Project Officer-3^rd respondent issued Ext.P2 order on 18.12.2013, granting her regular appointment in Anganawady No.35 in

¶44

Elampalloor Grama Panchayat. Along with her, one Smt.P.Suseela was also given regular appointment in Anganawady No.38.

¶45

While the petitioner was continuing as such, 3^rd respondent issued, Ext.P3 order, cancelling the regular appointment given to the petitioner as per Ext.P2 order, granting regular appointment to the 4^th respondent in her place in Anganwadi no.35 with effect from 01.04.2005. It

¶46

W.P.(C).No.13143 of 2016

¶47

¶48

was stated that the 4^th respondent was Rank No.3 in the seniority list of 2010 with 264 days of service; whereas the petitioner was only Rank No.5 with 202 days of service. Petitioner submits that such an order was passed without issuing any notice to her and even without serving the order on her, she was asked to hand over charge on 30.03.2016. The writ petition was filed at that stage challenging Ext.P3 order.

¶49

The 4^th respondent filed a counter

¶50

affidavit, stating that she was entitled to regular appointment in preference to petitioner as she was having 264 days of service with Rank No.3 in Ext.R4(a) seniority list.

¶51

The 3^rd respondent has also filed a

¶52

counter affidavit, stating that the 4^th respondent is senior to the petitioner. The contention of the

¶53

W.P.(C).No.13143 of 2016

¶54

¶55

petitioner is that the 4^th respondent abandoned duty and she was never interested in working in the Anganawadies.

¶56

Even though, the contention of petitioner is denied by the 4^th respondent, I find that Ext.P3 order has been passed three years after the regular appointment of petitioner as per Ext.P2 order, without even issuing any notice to her and hence the same is violative of the principles of natural justice. The 4^th respondent had not stated any reason for her silence for the last more than 2 years of Ext.P2 order, issued as early as in December 2013. Ext.P3 order also does not refer to any action in the meanwhile.

¶57

In these circumstance I find that it is a

¶58

case where the 1^st respondent has to take action in the matter, after hearing all the parties. Ext.P3

¶59

W.P.(C).No.13143 of 2016

¶60

¶61

order shall therefore stand quashed. It shall be open to the petitioner as well as 4^th respondent to submit representations before the 1^st respondent raising their respective claims within a period of two weeks of the receipt of a copy of the judgment. The 1^st respondent shall take a decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent, within a period of 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶62

Till such time, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue in the same Anganwadi.

¶63

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶64

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶65

Ampilly L. v. Director of Social Justice

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ampilly L. v. Director of Social Justice

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.G.Ganapathy Embrandhiri Vs v.a.Sheeja

Seenath P Vs Lathi Nair

Aradhana.R Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Jeena George Vs State of Kerala

K.D.Joseph Vs Union of India

Reshmi Remesh Vs Kodumon Grama Panchayath