Judgment:
(Prayer: These writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 28.10.2009, produced at Annexure-A, passed by 2nd respondent and order dated 28.10.2009, produced at Annexure-B passed by 2nd respondent as illegal and etc.)
1. These writ petitions by persons who claim to have been appointed as Anganawadi workers in terms of Annexure D1 to D7 and like orders issued in favour of the writ petitioners, before this Court, are all aggrieved that notwithstanding such appointment made in their favour, are now faced with the prospect of termination of their so called appointment in the wake of developments as per Annexure-A, communication from the Child Development Project Officer, Raibag, dated 09.10.2009 addressed to the Deputy Director, Department of Women and Child welfare at Belgaum, having been declined by the Deputy Director as per refusal of permission dated 28.10.2009 endorsed on the very communication apprising the Child Development Project Officer; that as the identification of Anganawadi Workers has not been made in accordance with the procedure envisaged in the Government Order No.231 (KANNADAM) 2006 dated 16.08.2007 and a further like communication dated 28.10.2009 (Annexure-B), providing for guidelines in the matter of identification of persons suitable to serve as Anganawadi workers and declining permission to proceed further for the appointment of the Anganawadi workers whose names had been forwarded by the Child Development Project Officer and so also as per another communication also dated 09.10.2009 for not only not following the earlier guidelines issued by the Government as order dated 16.08.2007, but also for violating the clear further guidelines issued by the State Government in a quasi-official order/ letter no. DWCD 242 ICD 2009, a copy of which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure ‘C’ to the petition and in the wake of the experience of the Department, that the Child Development Project Officer and other concerned persons having indulged in all sorts of malpractices in the matter of such appointments and having issued stern warnings to the Child Development Project Officers and having emphatically directed the Child Development Project Officer to adhere and abide by the following 9 guidelines.
(KANNADAM)
and the proposal, being clearly in violation and in contravention of the guidelines and the procedure the Deputy Director having declined to permit the Child Development Project Officer to go ahead with the proposal, the present writ petitions by persons claiming to be aggrieved as they had earlier been not only identified by the Child Development Project Officer but the said officer also having further embarked upon issuing appointment orders in favour of the petitioners as per his/her order dated 05.10.2009 (Annexure D1 series), etc. and therefore the petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs.
a) Quash the order dated order 28.10.2009 bearing No.Uunibe:MaMa.AaEi:Aan.Sa.Raddu:09-10 produced at Annexure-A passed by 2nd Respondent in and order dated order 28.10.2009 bearing No.Uunibe:MaMa.AaEi:Aan.Sa.Raddu:09-10 produced at Annexure-B passed by 2nd Respondent as illegal.
b) Direct the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioners to discharge the duties as Anganawadi Assistant.
c) Pass such other order or direction, this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstance of the case.
2. Appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submission of Sri Rajashekhar V. Burji, is that, the orders declining permission by the Deputy Director are per se bad in law having violated the principles of natural justice and with the petitioners already functioning and discharging their duties are Anganawadi workers pursuant to Ex.D1 series appointment orders issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Rayabagh and when they are so performing, their appointments could not have been terminated even without a notice to them, even without giving them proper opportunity to defend their position and therefore the orders at Annexure A and B issued by the Deputy Director being in gross violation of principles of natural justice are required to be quashed and a further direction issued to the Child Development Project Officer to continue the services of the petitioners.
3. While it is a celebrated principle of law that any action taken in violation of the principles of natural justice, is per se bad and such actions immediately attract the immediate and adverse attention of the Courts, law enforcing agencies and more so when this Court is exercising writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
4. All such consequences perhaps can follow only when the petitioners have a valid legal right which has been denied or deprived to them or taken away either without following a proper procedure or even in violation of the principles of natural justice even when no procedure is contemplated. Question is as to whether such is the situation before the Court, for examination and relief in favour of the petitioners.
5. On a perusal of the petition pleadings and annexures produced along with the writ petition, particularly Annexure A and B read with Annexure-C, it is obvious that in the first instance there has been lot of irregularities, illegalities, malpractices taking place in the matter of appointment of Anganawadi workers and such irregularities, illegalities committed by the authorities or concerned persons were even the subject matter of discussion before the Assembly as is narrated in the preamble to Annexure ‘C’ Circular dated 13.07.2009 and being the subject matter of discussion before the Estimation Committee of the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly and therefore the Circular was being issued by the Director, Department of Women and Child Development, Bangalore, circulated amongst all Deputy Directors and Child Development Project Officers for strict compliance and also warning them that any disregard of the directions/ guidelines will result in initiating appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the erring /violating officials.
6. It is rather ironic that the petitioners themselves have placed such material before the Court but are nevertheless crying hoarse, particularly complaining that the second respondent is not adhering to the principles of natural justice but is violating it!. It is nothing short of a hoax and a wild cry, but nowhere near reality or facts.
7. It is very obvious that no appointment orders have either been issued to the petitioners or could have been issued by the Child Development Project Officer even without obtaining the permission of the Deputy Director. In fact it is also possible that the Child Development Project Officer has embarked on a procedure of his own in clear violation of the guidelines and the procedural aspects, not only of the year 2007 but also of the year 2009 and it is also possible that third respondent – Child Development Planning Officer, Rayabag, Belgaum district, has indulged in not mere violations of the guidelines but also has indulged in malpractices and has taken the petitioners for a ride by issuing, if had issued the communication at Annexure-D1 series which is nothing short of a fraud and deceit played on the petitioners by this Officer.
8. It is also possible that there can be much more than what meets the eye in the third respondent issuing such communication at Annexure D1 series and in fact the very preamble to the order is a revelation, reading as under:
(KANNADAM)
It only quotes the request made by the Child Welfare Committee. Reference no.2 requesting the third respondent to appoint the persons whose names they are suggesting as Anganawadi Workers and with reference to the request of the petitioner no.3 dated 01.10.2009 and on humanitarian consideration the request is being considered and a further request for appointing person on such premise.
9. The preamble to the orders at Annexure D1 series very clearly reveals that the Child Development Project Officer – third respondent has not, followed any procedure, any guidelines, any methodology for identifying and appointing Anganawadi workers but has thrown everything to winds and has taken shelter under the pretext of the appointments being on humanitarian considerations and as though all other appointments which are to be made after following due procedure are inhuman appointments, etc!
10. Orders at Annexure D1 series are a clear mirror to the manner of functioning of public Officers holding authority in this State. It is nothing short of a gross arbitrary action and would per se elicit a writ of certiorari from this Court, if it should have been made the subject matter at the instance of any other persons who claims to be affected but ironically it is the petitioners who are before this Court seeking aid of this Court to protect this illegality committed in their favour and by quashing the most correct and proper refusal of permission by the Deputy Director to the proposal made by the third respondent- Child Development Project Officer, for the reason that the proposal is without following any rhyme, reason and procedure and in violation of the guidelines as per Circular Annexure-C.
11. It is a fit case where this Court not merely cannot exercise writ jurisdiction to the extend any relief in favour of the petitioners, but on nothing such glaring illegality committed by the third respondent, should necessarily issue directions for initiating a proper enquiry against the third respondent and proceed against the third respondent in accordance with law and procedure.
12. For the purpose of holding such an enquiry, third respondent-State to seek the aid and assistance of the Karnataka Lokayuktha to hold an enquiry in this context as to the manner of functioning of the third respondent and to take follow up action. The State Government is hereby directed to act further and to aid such an enquiry to be undertaken by the Karnataka Lokayuktha, as per this order.
13. Registrar General/Additional Registrar General of this Court/Bench is hereby directed to forward a copy of this order and petition papers not only to the Registrar, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, but also to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore with a further direction that enquiry and necessary follow up action as per the directions above, is ensured both at the level of the State Government and also at the level of the Lokayuktha and action in accordance with law, as provided for and contemplated in law is pursued against the erring officials, particularly if the third respondent is found to have misconducted himself/herself in the matter of discharge of duty as a public servant.
14. But for the above direction in this petition, in so far as the relief sought for is concerned, these writ petitions are dismissed.