High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petitions of Anganawadi Workers Challenging Removal for Grama Panchayat Membership — Removal Orders Quashed as Without Legal Basis and Violative of Natural Justice. Membership in a Grama Panchayat does not disqualify a person from holding the post of Anganawadi Worker under the applicable guidelines.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, Smt. Prameela C K and Smt. Kendamma H S, were Anganawadi Workers appointed under the Department of Women and Child Development, Karnataka. They were removed from service by orders dated 9.6.2016 passed by the Deputy Director (Respondent No.3) on the sole ground that they continued to be members of their respective Grama Panchayats. The petitioners challenged these orders by filing writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the removal orders. The court heard the matter and perused the records. The court observed that there was no provision in the guidelines or rules governing Anganawadi Workers that prohibited them from being members of a Grama Panchayat. The court further noted that the impugned orders were passed without issuing any show cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, thereby violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court held that the removal orders were unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The court allowed the writ petitions, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners as Anganawadi Workers with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The court also directed that the petitioners be paid their salary for the period they were out of service, subject to the condition that they had not worked elsewhere during that period.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Anganawadi Worker - Disqualification - Membership of Grama Panchayat - The court considered whether being a member of a Grama Panchayat disqualifies a person from continuing as an Anganawadi Worker. Held that there is no provision in the guidelines or rules that prohibits an Anganawadi Worker from being a member of a Grama Panchayat, and removal on that ground is unsustainable. (Paras 2-3)

B) Service Law - Anganawadi Worker - Removal - Natural Justice - The court examined whether the impugned orders of removal were passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. Held that the orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no show cause notice or hearing was given before removal. (Para 3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether membership of a Grama Panchayat constitutes a valid ground for removal of an Anganawadi Worker under the applicable guidelines and rules.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 9.6.2016 passed by the Deputy Director (Respondent No.3) are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners as Anganawadi Workers with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The petitioners shall be paid their salary for the period they were out of service, provided they have not worked elsewhere during that period.

Law Points

  • Anganawadi Worker
  • Grama Panchayat Membership
  • Disqualification
  • Removal from Service
  • Guidelines for Selection
  • Natural Justice
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (KAR) (01) 11

W.P.No.42516/2016 and W.P.No.43313/2016 (S-DIS)

2017-01-05

Aravind Kumar

Sri. Sharath S Gowda (for petitioners), Sri. E.S. Indiresh, AGA (for respondents)

Smt. Prameela C K and Smt. Kendamma H S

State of Karnataka, Department of Women and Child Development, and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging removal orders of Anganawadi Workers

Remedy Sought

Quashing of removal orders dated 9.6.2016 and reinstatement with consequential benefits

Filing Reason

Petitioners were removed from service as Anganawadi Workers on the ground that they continued to be members of Grama Panchayats

Issues

Whether membership of a Grama Panchayat is a valid ground for removal of an Anganawadi Worker under the applicable guidelines Whether the impugned removal orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that there is no provision prohibiting Anganawadi Workers from being members of Grama Panchayat and that removal orders were passed without notice or hearing Respondents argued in support of the removal orders, but the court found no legal basis for the same

Ratio Decidendi

Membership of a Grama Panchayat does not disqualify a person from holding the post of Anganawadi Worker under the applicable guidelines, and removal on that ground without affording an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard. Perused the records. The impugned orders are unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Procedural History

The petitioners were appointed as Anganawadi Workers. They were removed by orders dated 9.6.2016 by the Deputy Director on the ground of being members of Grama Panchayats. They filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the removal orders. The court heard the matter on 5.1.2017 and allowed the petitions.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petitions of Anganawadi Workers Challenging Removal for Grama Panchayat Membership — Removal Orders Quashed as Without Legal Basis and Violative of Natural Justice. Membership in a Grama Panchayat does not disqua...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Sarpanch Election Result — Tick Mark on Ballot Paper Held Valid. Court upholds Additional Commissioner's finding that respondent no.4 received five votes, rejecting petitioner's claim of invalid vote...