M.M. Das, J.
1. The Petitioner on being transferred and directed to join in Padampeta Anganwadi Centre after completion of her training on being appointed as such, in Madhuruchua, has preferred this Writ Petition.
2. During pendency of the Writ Petition, since the Opp. Party No. 3 being the Project Officer issued the letter under Annexure 4 intimating the Petitioner that the Collector has been pleased to disengage her from the post of Anganwadi Worker of Madhuruchua Centre of Ganjam I.C.D.S. Project with immediate effect for disobedience of the order of the authority, she sought for amendment of the Writ Petition. The said amendment being allowed, the Petitioner has now prayed for quashing the order under Annexure-2 which was initially issued to the Petitioner intimating her that she is appointed at Padampeta Anganwadi Centre after she completed her training and the Annexure-4 under which she has been intimated that she is disengaged from the post of Anganwadi Worker.
3. The facts reveal that the Petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste community and had applied for being appointed as an Anganwadi Worker. The Petitioner was engaged/appointed as such on 8.6.1999 in Madhuuchua Centre under the Sana Ramachandrapur Grama Panchayat. While continuing as such, she was directed to undergo job course training from 23.8.1999 to 27.10.1 999. After completion of the training, when she came to join in her post, she was served with the letter under Annexure-2 intimating her that she has been appointed as Anganwadi Worker in Padampeta Centre, which according to the Petitioner, is about 15 K.Ms away from her village. She made a representation to the authority to consider her case and not to shift her from Madhuruchua Centre. No action having been taken, she approached this Court in the present Writ Petition for appropriate relief. As stated earlier, during the pendency of the Writ Petition, she was served with the letter under Annexure-4 intimating her that she has been dis-engaged from the post of Anganwadi Worker by the Collector. On amending the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged both the orders, under Annexure-2 as well as Annexure-4 on the ground that the shifting of the Petitioner to another centre which is 15 K.Ms away from the native village of the Petitioner is contrary to the guidelines and she having challenged the said order by filing the present Writ Petition, the order disengaging her under Annexure-4 ex-facie discloses that the same has been issued as a result of malice in order to show undue favour to one Namita Patnaik who though not selected at the time of selection, was engaged to work as Anganwadi Worker in the post of the Petitioner when she was deputed for undergoing training.
4. However, it is seen that said Namita Patnaik has not been impleaded as an Opp. Party in the present Writ Petition for which the legality of her appointment cannot be examined in the present Writ Petition.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Opp. Parties 2 and 4 being the Collector, Ganjam and the C.D.P.O. Ganjam respectively. It has been admitted in the counter affidavit that the Petitioner was engaged in Madhuruchua Anganwadi Centre on being duly selected and underwent the job course training from 23.8.1999 to 27.10.1999. After returning from the training, she again joined on 28.10.1999. It is alleged by the Opp. Parties in the counter affidavit that after she joined, the villagers did not allow her to work and since various programmes are to be implemented under the I.C.D.S. Projects which required the involvement of the villagers and no such programme can be implemented without the co-operation of the villagers, keeping the interest of the general Public and to enable the centre in question to function smoothly, the Collector directed the Petitioner to be adjusted at Padampeta Anganwadi Centre in order to maintain continuity of the job of the Petitioner. It is the further case of the Opp. Parties that in spite of the aforesaid arrangement, the Petitioner having not joined at Padampeta, finding no way out, in order to ensure proper implementation of the I.C.D.S. programmes the post lying vacant at Padampeta Centre was filled up by the candidate who hostood second in the merit list in, respect of the said centre. It is further alleged that the action of the villagers in not allowing the Petitioner to function at Madhuruchua centre was enquired into by the Sub-Collector, Chhatrapur pursuant to the order passed by the Collector on 15.5.2001 and the Sub-Collector submitted his report by his letter dated 28.5.2001 under Annexure-A/2 to the counter affidavit. On the basis of the said report, the Petitioner was allowed to continue at Madhuruchua Centre to which the villagers strongly protested and did not cooperate for effective implementation of any programme practically rendering the Centre to be defunct. The villagers also made a representation to the Minister, Women and Child Development Department, Government of Orissa who forwarded the same to the Collector, Ganjam on 3.7.2007.
6. From the said representation, it appears that the main allegation of the villagers was that the Mahila Sabha which recommended the Petitioner, was conducted without the knowledge of the villagers and no Government Officers/I.C.D.S. functionary had put their signatures in the said proceeding and also the recommendation to appoint the Petitioner was illegal. On the above basis, it has been stated in the counter that the said Madhuruchua Anganwadi Centre could not function due to the aforesaid reasons. In order to make the same functional as there was no alternative than to disengage the Petitioner, necessary order, was passed by the Collector which was communicated to the Petitioner under Annexure-4 and the vacancy so caused after disengagement of the Petitioner has also been filled up after following the procedures of selection process.
7. It has been categorically admitted in the counter affidavit that though there is no provision of transfer in the guidelines, but in order to resolve the statemate and to save the Petitioner from being disengaged, she was directed to join at Padampeta Anganwadi Centre under Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition.
8. Dr. Tripathy, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that there being no provision under the guidelines to transfer an Anganwadi Worker from the Centre for which he/she was appointed, such an order of transfer which is admitted to have been passed under the pressure of the villagers cannot be sustained in the eye of law. He further argued that the Writ Petition was filed on 3.12.2602 impugning the order under Annexure-2 by which the Petitioner was transferred/directed to join at Padampeta Centre after serving a copy of the said Writ Petition on the Learned Counsel for the State. As such, it should be presumed that the Opp. Parties had knowledge that the matter is pending before this Court and the order disengaging the Petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Worker under Annexure-4 having been passed during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the irresistible conclusion would be that the said order has been passed in order to over-reach this Court.
9. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that the I.C.D.S. Programmes are being taken up for the benefit of the general public and in the peculiar facts of the case, as it was seen that continuance of the Petitioner in which she was appointed was strongly resisted by the majority villagers, for implementation of the programmes, the authorities were left with no other alternative but to place the Petitioner at Padampeta Centre. As such, he contended that even though the guidelines do not provide for transfer of an Anganwadi Worker, such centre having been established only with the avowed purpose to reach the goal under the I.C.D.S. Programme, holding that the order under Annexure-2 by which the Petitioner was directed to join at Padampeta Centre to be illegal and contrary to the guidelines would be purely technical and keeping the interest of general public in mind, for whose benefit such schemes are being implemented, the order under Annexure-2 should not be interfered with. However, Learned Counsel for the State further submitted that the Petitioner having not joined at Padampeta Centre in order to make the said centre fully functional, the Petitioner was disengaged and another suitable candidate has been engaged in the said post in accordance with the guidelines by the candidate who secured second position in the merit list for that post and after disengagement of the Petitioner the vacancy caused has also been filled up by Smt. Namita Patnaik who belongs to the said village after following the procedures of selection afresh and there is no vacancy at present to accommodate the Petitioner.
10. Considering the averments made in the Writ Petition as well as the counter affidavit and the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the respective parties, this Court finds that before passing the order of disengagement by the Collector no opportunity whatsoever has been given to the Petitioner to place her case before the Collector inasmuch as even the Petitioner has not been favoured with a notice to show cause as to why she shall not be disengaged from her post. From the averments made in the counter affidavit, it appears that the Collector before taking a decision to disengage the Petitioner had caused an enquiry to be conducted by the Sub-Collector, Chhatrapur and only after receiving the said enquiry report, the Petitioner was allowed to continue at Madhuruchua and, thereafter, the representation is alleged to have been made by the villagers which was forwarded to the Collector by the Minister, Women and Child Development Department under Annexure-B/2 to the counter affidavit.
11. A perusal of the enquiry report annexed as AnnexureA/2 discloses that the Petitioner was the only eligible candidate who on being selected submitted her joining report on 26.6.1998 and after completion of her training, the CD.P.O. by her letter dated 20.11.1999 intimated that the Petitioner was not able to function due to resistance of the villagers. The relevant portion of the report submitted by the Sub-Collector, Chhatrapur before the Collector, Ganjam is extracted hereunder:
How ever, the C.D.P.O., Ganjam vide her letter No. 222/99 dated 20.11.99 had submitted that though Miss. Josoda Behera has joined her duty on 28.6.99 and completed Anganwadi Worker's training, she was not able to function as Anganwadi Worker owing to the fact that around 95% of the villagers were opposing to' Miss. Behera and were interested in selection of the other candidate Namita Patnaik and that they were not allowing Miss. Behera to do any sort of work relating to I.C.D.S.
In view of the aforementioned facts, I am of the opinion that as Miss. Josoda Behera who was duly selected as A.W.W. earlier may be given a fresh chance to continue at Madhuruchua village instead of Podampeta so that justice to a poor lady belonging to S.C. community may be ensured. If the local Youth persist in obstructing, the Anganwadi centre may be shifted from the village to another suitable village.
12. From the representation stated to have been submitted by the villagers which was forwarded to the Collector by the Minister, Women Child Development Department, it is clearly disclosed that the same is not a representation by the villagers but one Sudhir Nayak and other members of 'Sastriji Yuba Parishad'. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Collector without providing copies of the enquiry report, the representation and other relevant papers of the Petitioner basing on which he came to the conclusion that the Petitioner should be disengaged and that too, attaching a stigma on the Petitioner that she has acted in disobedience to the orders of the authorities, the order of disengagement of the Petitioner from the post of Anganwadi Worker at Madhuruchua Centre cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said Order dated 17.5.2003 (Annexure 4) disengaging the Petitioner passed by the Collector, is quashed.
13. Since no materials whatsoever have been brought before this Court to show that the Petitioner was directed to join at Padampeta Centre due to the Petitioner being resisted by 95% of the villagers from working as an Anganwadi Worker at Madhuruchua Centre and there being no stipulation in the guidelines for transferring an Anganwadi Worker to another centre, this Court is of the view that the Collector also could not have passed the order appointing the Petitioner at Padampeta Centre which was communicated to the Petitioner by the C.D.P.O. under Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition. Thus, the order directing the Petitioner to join at Padampeta Centre also cannot be sustained which is accordingly quashed.
14. The Opp. Parties are directed to allow the Petitioner to join in Madhuruchua Anganwadi Centre in the post to which she was appointed and the Petitioner should be treated to be continuing as an Anganwadi Worker in the Madhuruchua Centre during the period in which she could not function as such due to issuance of the orders under Annexures2 and 4. Since the Petitioner has not functioned from the date of issuance of Annexure-2, i.e., 1.8.2000 and the said order has been quashed in the present case, ordinarily, the Opp. Parties would have been directed to pay salary for the said period from 1.8.2000 till she is allowed to join. As she has not functioned during the said period, this Court, in the interest of justice and equity, directs that the Petitioner would be paid half of the said amount which would have been received by her has she continued to function as an Angawadi Worker. Such payment shall be made to the Petitioner immediately after she joins in the said Madhuruchua Centre and starts functioning by discharging her duties as an Anganwadi Worker.
15. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, but in the circumstances without any cost.