SMT. NAHIDA ANJUM Vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR/CHAIRMAN ANGANAVADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER/MEMBER SECRETARY OF ANGANAVADI WORKERS SELECTION COMMITTEE, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed as Anganawadi worker on 5.3.2011. The Selection Committee recommended the cancellation of the said appointment on 12.5.2011. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 18493/2011. The person who was sought to be appointed in place of the petitioner i.e., Smt. Shabeena Banu, filed W.P. No. 5169/2012 questioning a resolution dated 12.5.2011 of the Committee for Selection of Anganawadi workers. W.P. No. 5169/2012 filed by Smt. Shabeena Banu was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed by an order dated 22.9.2012, as at Annexure -B. W.P. No. 18493/2011 filed by the petitioner herein was also decided on the same day vide Annexure -C. In view of the order passed in W.P. No. 5169/2012, it was held that W.P. No. 18493/2011 filed by the petitioner herein does not survive for consideration. However, it was indicated that the writ petition as dismissed. Subsequently, an application having been filed, the word 'dismissed' has been corrected as 'disposed of vide order dated 15.11.2012. The petitioner has submitted a representation dated 26.11.2012, as at Annexure -E, to withdraw the Official Memorandum dated 17.11.2012, issued to her and continue her service. An endorsement dated 30.11.2012, as at Annexure -F, was issued. The petitioner submitted a further representation, as at Annexure -G, in response to which, an endorsement, as at Annexure -H dated 7.12.2012 was issued, whereby, the petitioner was relieved from service, on the ground that, on account of dismissal of W.P. No. 18493/2011 on 22.9.2012, she is relieved from service. Assailing the said endorsement, this writ petition has been filed. Sri. Raghavendra G. Gayathri, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents, after perusing the writ record submitted, that it is wrong on the part of the respondents to have issued the impugned endorsement, despite the correction of the order dated 22.9.2012 passed in W.P. No. 18493/2011. He submitted that the construction placed by the respondents on the order passed by this Court, as at Annexure -C, which was corrected on 15.11.2012, is erroneous.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned HCGP, in my opinion, the stand taken by the learned HCGP is just. In view of the dismissal of W.P. No. 5169/2012 and consequent disposal of W.P. No. 18493/2011, the respondents are not justified in relieving the petitioner from service by issue of an endorsement dated 7.12.2012, as at Annexure -H. The endorsement issued to the petitioner, impugned in this writ petition, is arbitrary and illegal and runs counter to the orders passed by this Court, as at Annexures B and C. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement is quashed. Respondents are directed to take the petitioner into service, within a period of one week from the date a copy of this order is produced by the petitioner. However, the principle of 'no work no pay' applies. No costs.