C. JAYAKUMARI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed by the appellant seeking to quash Ext.P4, insofar as it appointed the 5th respondent as Anganawadi worker and for a direction, compelling the respondents to appoint the appellant in the place of the 5th respondent. A concise statement of the pleadings in the writ petition is to the following effect: The petitioner had been working as Helper in the Anganawadi under the 4th respondent Grama Panchayat since 20.4.2002. She was appointed as a regular Helper on 26.5.2007 and her appointment as permanent Helper was approved on 1.9.2007. The category of Anganawadi worker is above that of Helper. As per Ext.P2, it is provided that 25% of the vacancies in the post of Anganawadi Worker has to be filled up by promotion from among the Anganawadi Helpers in the Panchayat/Municipality/Corporation and that, for the purpose of such promotion, the candidate should have not less than ten years experience as Helper and should have the educational qualification of 10th standard. As per Ext.P3 Government Order, it was clarified that an Anganawadi Helper with the requisite qualification and ten years temporary service, as Helper, can be considered for appointment as Anganawadi Worker, in the 25% quota. Though the petitioner was the only Anganawadi Helper with the required educational qualification and prescribed service, while issuing Ext.P4 list of Anganawadi Workers, the petitioner's name was not included and instead the name of the 5th respondent was included in the list. On enquiry, the petitioner was informed that she was not considered for appointment since in Ext.P5 Government Order, it was specified that only permanent service of ten years as an Anganawadi Helper would be reckoned for the purpose of appointment as Anganawadi Worker in the 25% quota.

(2.) In the writ petition, counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent, refuting the above mentioned averments and contentions in the writ petition. It was pointed out in the counter affidavit that the latest Government order being Ext.P5, that alone can be considered for the purpose of effecting appointment to the post of Anganawadi Worker. That, since the appellant did not have the requisite 10 years permanent service as Anganawadi Helper, she cannot challenge the appointment of the 5th respondent.

(3.) Based on the rival contentions, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that in Ext.P5 order, the Government brought about certain modifications to the earlier order and that when '10 years service on permanent appointment' is specifically provided as the requirement/requisite qualification for promotion of an Anganawadi Helper as Anganawadi Worker, it is not necessary to have a specific supersession of Ext.P3 order.