SANTOSH Vs. THE STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 had issued notification on 31.10.2006 whereby applications were invited on plain paper along with documents for the post of Anganwadi Worker in Gram Panchayat, Khani. The petitioner submitted an application as per notification dated 31.10.2006. She was called for interview on 22.12.2006 by the respondent No. 2. It appears from the record that respondent No. 3 made a representation to respondent No. 2 on 9.4.2007 seeking her transfer from Anganwadi Centre, Kamand to Anganwadi Centre, Khun. Her application was accepted and she was transferred from Anganwadi Centre, Kamand to Anganwadi Centre, Khun. She joined her duties at Anganwadi Centre, Khun on 16.4.2007. The resultant vacancy at Anganwadi Centre, Kamand was filled up by way of appointment of respondent No. 4.

(2.) MR . Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate has strenuously argued that the transfer of respondent No. 3 from Anganwadi Centre, Kamand to Anganwadi Centre, Khun is against the law and sprit of the notification dated 11.4.2007 whereby guidelines have been framed for engagement of the Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. He then contended that once the process had been initiated by respondent No. 2 for filling up the post of Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Khun, the same could not be terminated mid way by accommodating respondent No. 3 at Anganwadi Centre, Khun.

(3.) MR . S.C. Sharrna, Advocate has adopted the arguments of the learned Senior Additional Advocate General. Respondent No. 4, though served, is not represented.