ARATI SHIVAJI KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(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 & 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. 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.

(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 as 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.