The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of a woman as an Anganwadi Worker. The Court held that without proof of malpractice or corrupt activity, the Selection Committee's decision is binding and no interference is warranted.
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dismissed with no order as to costs.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 01.11.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.11105 of 2013
V.Elaiyarani
... Petitioner
Vs
3.The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Dharmapuri.
4.The Block Child Development Officer, ICDS, Morappur, Dharmapuri District. 5.S.Sennammal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Mandamus, direction to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 10.12.2012 filed by the petitioner against the appointment of the 5th respondent as Anganwadi Worker in the Child Development Centre at G.Mookanurpatti, in Morappur Block and pass orders within a time limit.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Baskar
For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Selvam, GA for R1 to R4 No appearance for R5
The relief sought for in thi s writ petition is for a direction to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal dated 10.12.2012 filed by the petitioner against the appointment of the 5 th respondent as Anganwadi Worker in the Child Development Centre at G.Mookanurpatti, in Morappur Block.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner is fully qualified and eligible for appointment to the Post of Anganwadi worker of Child Welfare Centre at Panchayat Union Elementary School, Dwarakapuri in Krishnagiri Block. The respondents conducted an interview and the 5 th respondent was appointed contrary to the rules in force. The 5 th respondent was not residing within the radius of 3 Kms of that village. Therefore, the appointment of the writ petitioner is illegal and in violation of the guidelines issued in this regard.
3.The learned counsel Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents brought to the notice of this Court that the norms fixed by the Government was scrupulously followed, while undertaking the process of selection. The 4 th respondent filed a counter affidavit, stating that the 5 th respondent has been selected for the Post of Anganwadi Worker, since she is residing within 1 Km from the Center and she has passed S.S.L.C and she had answered all the questions in the interview and since the main criteria for appointment to the Post of Anganwadi Worker is ability, educational qualification, knowledge about the scheme and residency.
4.The contention of the petitioner is that she is a deserted woman, is not applicable for the post of Anganwadi Worker.
5.This Court is of an opinion that the decision of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with by the Courts' in a routine manner. The decision of the Selection Committee can be questioned, if there is any malpractice or corrupt activities. In such an event, the person, who is approaching the Court, is bound to establish all such allegations. In the absence of any such allegations, the decision of the Selection Committee is binding on all the policies.
6.In the present case, the ground raised by the writ petitioner has been answered by the respondent in their counter, by stating that the writ petitioner is residing within 1 Km from the Center and she had passed S.S.L.C. This being the factum of the case, the case of the writ petitioner cannot be considered. This Court is of an opinion that in view of the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, setting out the facts and details, there is no necessity to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal filed by the writ petitioner.
7.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kak
To
1.The Director of Social Welfare,
Chennai – 600 005.
2.The District Collector,
Dharmapuri.
3.The Project Officer,
Integrated Child Development Scheme,
Dharmapuri.
4.The Block Child Development Officer,
ICDS, Morappur,
Dharmapuri District.
+1 cc to M/s.R.Thamarai Selvan, Advocate Sr.No.75230
+1 cc to The Government Pleader, Sr.No.75909
W.P.No.11105 of 2013
NRI(CO)
CSL/28.11.2018
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the decision of the Selection Committee appointing an applicant to the post of Anganwadi Worker in the absence of allegations of malpractice or corruption.
Whether the appointment of the fifth respondent was illegal in violation of residency and educational eligibility criteria despite the petitioner's claims.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.Elaiyarani
The Director of Social Welfare, Chennai
The District Collector, Dharmapuri
The Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Dharmapuri
The Block Child Development Officer, ICDS, Morappur
S.Sennammal
S.M.Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
