ARAM JYOTI BISHOYI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is preferred by the writ petitioners aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, who disposed of the writ petition issuing certain directions to the respondents. The relevant facts in this case lie in a very narrow compass. Through the Notification No. 90 of 2009 dated 9.10.2010 issued by the Project Director, Child Development Project, Srikakulam, the post of Anganwadi Worker, among all other places, was proposed to be filled in at Nadasandra Village of Meliaputti Mandal of Srikakulam District. Both the writ petitioners as well as the 5th respondent herein appear to have responded to the said notification. Interviews were scheduled for on 28.10.2010. The petitioners were interviewed. But the candidature of the 5th respondent was not considered as she was elected as Sarpanch of the said village and a Sarpanch of the village is not entitled to be considered for appointment as an Anganwadi Worker. But however, instead of finalising the selections, official respondents have cancelled the entire selection process and re-advertised the Anganwadi Worker's vacancy of Nadasandra Village once again on 27.11.2010. Questioning this notification, the writ petition came to be instituted. The writ petitioners-appellants suspect that with a view to favour the 5th respondent, the earlier notification dated 9.10.2010 has been cancelled and the vacancy was notified afresh on 27.11.2010, so that she can become eligible for consideration. The petitioners draw support from the information obtained by a former member of the Mandal Parishad under Right to Information Act, which discloses that the 5th respondent has not submitted her resignation to the office of Sarpanch of the village till 8.11.2010. The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that both the petitioners had their schooling at Bhuvaneswar, in the neighbouring Orissa State and that they can only speak and write Oriya language and that they cannot canvass or write Telugu language and hence, the very object of selecting them or appoint (hem as Anganwadi Workers of Nadasandra Village would be completely frustrated, inasmuch as an Anganwadi Worker is required to interact with the pregnant women and lactating mothers apart from trying to raise the 2012(3) FR-F-49 nutritional standards of young children up to the age of six in the village. The Anganwadi Worker is also required to interact with the young women in the village so as to impart significance and importance of maintaining personal hygiene amongst them to avoid diseases by contamination. Further, the learned Judge has also held that no candidate has got a right to get appointed against any vacancy, which is once notified. Therefore, the learned Judge held that the cancellation of the earlier notification dated 9.10.2010 and re-notifying it on 27.11.2010 is not wrongful.

(2.) There is hardly any doubt about the role of an Anganwadi Worker to be played at the village level One is required to take good care of women in general and the vulnerable amongst them in particular. Young children are required to be supported carefully and every effort should be made to improve upon the standards of their nutrition. Since the petitioners-appellants have asserted that they can speak and write Telugu language, which would be not un-common considering the fact that Nadasandra Village is stituted in close proximity to the State border with Orrisa, the official respondents need not have entertained any apprehensions about usefulness of finalizing selections pursuant to the notification issued by them on 9.10.2010 provided the appellants are capable of speaking and writing of Telugu language. It is hardly in doubt that the 5th respondent's candidature could not have been considered as she was elected as Sarpanch of the village. No such a person is ineligible to be appointed as an Anganwadi Worker.

(3.) Keeping these aspects in view, we requested the Government Pleader for Women Development, to ascertain the true facts and find out as to whether the petitioners-appellants are capable of reading and writing Telugu. The learned Government Pleader has informed us that the petitioners-appellants are capable of writing in Telugu language and they are also capable of communicating Telugu language freely.