A writ petitioner, an Anganwadi worker, challenged an administrative order of transfer to a centre 1.5 km away as punitive due to lack of hearing. The Court found no evidence of punitiveness and no justification for interference under Article 226.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MAY 2022 / 2ND JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 2897 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
GIRIJA K AGED 58 YEARS W/O RANGAN.B, AGED 58 YEARS, ANGANWADI WORKER, C.NO.121, ULLOOR, RESIDING AT PULIYADI HOUSE, PAROTTUKONAM, NALANCHIRA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN- 695015 BY ADV T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH)
RESPONDENT/S:
OTHER PRESENT:
GP VENUGOPAL V.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No.2897 of 2022
-2-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2022
The petitioner is employed as an Anganwadi Worker. She was earlier working at the Anganwadi Centre No.121 coming within the jurisdiction of the third respondent. While so, she was placed under suspension on the allegation of misbehaviour towards the peoples representatives, including the Mayor. Later, the petitioner tendered apology to the Mayor directly and submitted Ext.R3(f) statement, requesting to revoke her suspension. Thereupon, Ext.P4 order was issued, revoking petitioner's suspension. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by Ext.P5 order issued thereafter, transferring the
petitioner from Anganwadi Centre No.121 to Anganwadi Centre No. 123.
W.P.(C) No.2897 of 2022
Having heard the learned Counsel on either side and having gone through the records, I am unable to find any material to hold Ext.P5 order to be punitive in nature. Moreover, it is an admitted case that the distance to the Anganwady to which the petitioner is transferred is only 1½ kilometres. In such circumstances, there is no justification in interfering with Ext.P5 order in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of
W.P.(C) No.2897 of 2022
the Constitution of India.
In the result, the writ petition is
dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/
W.P.(C) No.2897 of 2022
-5-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2897/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO DATED 3/1/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 4/1/2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/1/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/1/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/1/2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order transferring an Anganwadi worker from one centre to another located 1.5 km away was punitive in nature requiring a hearing?
Whether the Court could interfere with the administrative order of transfer under Article 226 of the Constitution?
GIRIJA K
THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT
THE DISTRICT WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER
V.G.ARUN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
