JINYA (SMT.) Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve common question of law and facts and therefore, with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, they are being heard and decided together. For the purpose of decision of these two writ petitions, the facts stated in the Writ Petition No. 5263/2006 are taken as a leading case.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to these writ petitions are that petitioner Smt. Jinya and petitioner Smt. Jiyanda were appointed by the respondent Child Development Project Officer, Jaisalmer on the post of Anganwadi workers. Petitioner Smt. Jinya was appointed at Anganwadi Centre, Javandh Juni -I vide order dt. 01.11.1994 and petitioner Smt. Jiyande was appointed at Anganwadi Centre, Javandh Juni -II vide order dt. 07.09.1990 and both the petitioners have been working since their appointment at their respective place of posting. By order dt. 28.10.2005, the respondent No. 4 temporarily stayed the functioning of the Anganwadi Centres, at Javandh Juni and directed to shift the centres temporarily to the nearing centre. By Annex.7 dt. 30.01.2006, it has been stated that Gram Panchayat in its General meeting took a decision in respect of reopening of the centres while stating that the petitioners who have been working as Anganwadi workers since 1990 and 1994 have been rendering their services satisfactorily and therefore, they be allowed to continue at the centres. By order Annex.8 dt. 24.02.2006, the respondent State sought reasons for temporarily closing both the centre from the respondent Deputy Director, ICDS cum officiating Project Director and directed reopining of the centres. By order Annex.11, the respondent State directed to transfer one of the Anganwadi Centres which was opended later and the Anganwadi Centre which was opened prior in time be allowed to continue and for the purpose of Anganwadi workers it was directed to have a fresh selection. Aggrieved by the order directing a fresh selction as also transferring one of the Anganwadi Centre, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions.

(3.) FROM the documents annexed with the writ petition, it appears that no reasons have been assigned for even temporarily staying the functioning of the Anganwadi Centres. It has not been disputed that both the centres as Javandh Juni, Tehsil and District Jaisalmer have been functioning since 1990 and 1994 and no irregularity or illegality have been shown against the Anganwadi workers who are the present petitioners herein. The documents placed on record show that the services rendered by the petitioners have been found satisfactory. Annex.5 in Writ Petition No. 6602/2006 clearly goes to show that the services rendered by the petitioners as Anganwadi workers over last 13 to 15 years have been found satisfactory and Anganwadi centres are being run properly.