MALTI KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD both the parties.

(2.) PETITIONER , while she was unmarried and a resident of the village, was appointed as Anganbari Sevika. This appointment was accorded to her as far back as on 1st September, 1984. At that time, in order to be appointed as Anganbari Sevika, it was not necessary that the appointee should belong to any target group or to below the poverty line. It was also not provided at that time that an unmarried girl, though resident of the village, cannot be appointed as Anganbari Sevika. This appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on 17th October, 1998 principally on the ground that on the date of visit by the Hon ble Minister, the Anganbari centre was found closed. At the same time, similar decision was taken in relation to two other Anganbari Sevikas on the self same ground as conveyed by one single order. They approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was allowed by this Court and the order terminating engagement of those Anganbari Sevikas as well as that of the petitioner was set aside. On the strength of 'the said order, petitioner made a representation. The same was not considered. In the representation, it was ' stated that since by one order, appointment of three Anganbari Sevikas was cancelled and inasmuch as that order was set aside by this Court, the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner also stood evaporated and accordingly, she should be permitted to resume her duties. This representation remained in cold storage and accordingly, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition. In that writ petition, this Court directed the representation of the petitioner to be considered in accordance with law.

(3.) THE appointment, as was given to the petitioner, was given on the basis of the criteria then laid down. There was a purported interference with such appointment, which has already been quashed by this Court. In law therefore, the appointment of the petitioner still continues. In the matter of permitting the petitioner to continue to discharge her duties on the basis of her initial appointment, criterias, as were brought in 1998 and 2001, could not be looked at.