BALI DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Anganwari Worker on 31.1.1996. Her political ambitions led her to contest the election of Panch/Sarpanch in the Gram Panchayat elections held in Haryana in June -July, 2010, but before doing so she sought a clarification from the 4th respondent, i.e. Programme Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, Panipat whether an Anganwari Worker can contest the election for the post of Sarpanch or Panch. She was informed by the Child Development Project Officer, Bapoli, District Panipat that since Anganwari Workers are paid honorarium, they are free to contest elections. Fortunately for her she won the election on 6.7.2010. She was declared elected as Panch. She won the further election of Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Tamsabad. She then started performing the duties of both Anganwari Worker and Sarpanch. Her services were, however, dispensed with vide order dated 3.4.2012, against which, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned order has been passed in compliance of the current GOI instructions circulated by the Director, Women and Child Development Department, Haryana, Panchkula. The instructions (P -3) dated 7.9.2010 read as follows: -

(2.) THE view the Central Government once took qua ICDS Scheme was that Anganwari Workers could file nomination papers, contest elections and in case, they won, they were not required to resign from the post nor could be forced to resign has been departed from and has suffered a paradigm shift. The present thinking is that both the assignments cannot be concurrently discharged. The shift in thinking is not without reason. The concurrent holding of duties of both the posts are now viewed as one which would impinge and adversely affect delivery of service in ICDS scheme. As an Anganwari worker, the petitioner is governed by ICDS scheme. If it prohibits a person from continuing to serve as an Anganwari Worker following election to the Gram Panchayat then there is nothing illegal, arbitrary or irrational in such decision. The Central Government in such decision making is neither concerned, nor is an employer, nor pays money from its exchequer to a Panch or Sarpanch elected to a Gram Panchayat in a State of the Union unless specially set apart and appropriated in the Union budget for a Gram Panchayat.

(3.) IN Som Lal v. Vijay Laxmi and others, : (2008) 11 SCC 413 : 2008 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 760, relied upon by the petitioner is a case distinguishable on facts. In this case, the Supreme Court considered whether a salaried employee of any local authority, statutory corporation or Board or a cooperative society can be held to hold an office of profit under Section 11 of the Punjab State Election Commission Act, 1994, and therefore a disqualification has been answered in the negative. Such person is entitled to contest Panchayat elections. The facts were that a whole time employee of the Marketing Committee was elected as Sarpanch of a Panchayat. The Supreme Court held that such election could not be set aside on the ground that the litigant was holding an office of profit. The relationship of the elected Sarpanch with his employer is governed by the rules of service and the terms and conditions of employment, if any, which may or may not permit dual charge. The petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right to continue to serve as an Anganwari Worker merely because a certificate was issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Bapoli to the petitioner on 13.6.2010 clearing the way to contest Gram Panchayat elections. The certificate was in contradiction of the Government of India circular issued in ICDS Scheme and was prior to point of time. It has been observed by Government of India in its letter dated 7.2.2012 as under: - -