SAROJINI AMMA M Vs. DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st petitioner who was an Anganwadi Worker and the 2nd petitioner who is her daughter have filed this Writ Petition aggrieved by the orders Exts.P5 and P11 by which the request for granting appointment to the 2nd petitioner as permanent Anganwadi Worker was rejected on the ground that the extent of land donated by the 1st petitioner was only two cents and that as per Ext.P6 order the extent of land required is 3 cents and only those who donated 3 cents of land/their dependant, for construction of Anganwadi, would be eligible to get employment in that category.

(2.) The petitioners pointed out that when they donated the land there was no prescription regarding the extent of land. According to the petitioners, land was surrendered in 1990 and the respondents got the Anganwadi building constructed in that land. It is also stated that the property was handed over to the respondents. It is stated that the Anganwadi started functioning in that building constructed in the land donated by the 1st petitioner from 04.10.1994.

(3.) The 1st petitioner retired from service while working in that Anganwadi, on 30.04.2018. Immediately on her retirement, she submitted Ext.P2 representation requesting to give appointment to the 2nd petitioner in the light of Ext.P1 order. The representation was considered on the basis of direction from this Court in Ext.P3 judgment in WP(C) No.14704/2018. The 2nd respondent rejected the representation as per Ext.P5 order in the light of Ext.P6 order. According to the petitioners Ext.P6 does not relate to the donation of land by Anganwadi Workers; but it only related to strangers. Therefore according to the petitioners the order Ext.P5 which is passed relying on Ext.P6 order is absolutely unsustainable.