AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable
forthwith, and heard finally with the consent
of the parties.
This Petition is filed praying
therein to direct the respondents to appoint
petitioners to the post of Anganwadi Sevika
or Anganwadi Madatnis under the Integrated
Child Development Scheme, in view of the
Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010 and
09.02.2005 as well as Writ Petition
No.3710/2011 and Writ Petition No.3762/2005.
It is further prayed to quash and set aside
the order dated 11.12.2015 issued by the
Zilla Parishad, Beed.
Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners invites our attention to the
Government Resolution dated 5th August, 2010,
issued by the Women and Child Development
Department, and submits that, the respondents
are bound to follow the said Government
Resolution, and to appoint the petitioners on
the post of Anganwadi Sevika. The legitimate
claim of the petitioners has not been
considered by the respondents, however,
similarly situated Balmatas have been given
benefit, and they are appointed on the post
of Anganwadi Sevika and/or Madatnis as
provided under the aforesaid Government
Resolution. The petitioners are fully
qualified for the appointment on the post of
Anganwadi Sevika / Madatnis. The petitioners
are working in Balwadi and getting
remuneration of Rs.500/-. One of the
petitioners, namely, Nisha w/o. Shivajirao
Kulkarni forwarded a complaint to the State
Authorities and the Additional Commissioner
[Anganwadi., Women and Child Development
Commissioner, Pune has specifically directed
to the Additional Chief Executive Officer,
Beed on 11th January, 2012, to look into the
grievances raised in the said complaint.
However, the said instructions were ignored
by the authorities. It is submitted that
while disposing of the Writ Petition
No.3808/2014 [Jijabai Anil Karkule-Sawant and
others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and
others], by order dated 18th September, 2014,
directed the respondents to consider the case
of the petitioners in case Anganwadis are
established at the places where the
petitioners are working.
The petitioners filed representation
to respondent no.4, and the same was pending
with the Zilla Parishad, Beed. The High Court
directed Zilla Parishad to decide the said
representation. However, claim of the
petitioners has been rejected by the Zilla
Parishad, observed that, the Zilla Parishad
has no jurisdiction to make appointment to
the post of Anganwadi Sevika. It is the
contention of the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners that, the impugned order
passed by respondent no.4 is without
following the Resolution passed by the
Government time to time. Therefore, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
that, the Petition deserves to be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos.4, 5, 7 and 8
relying upon the affidavit-in-reply submits
that, the Anganwadi functioning in urban area
are under the control of Government and Child
Development Project Officer in the Department
working under the department of Women and
Child Development is the appointing
authority. The petitioners were not eligible
for the posts advertised by the State
Authorities, on the ground of age limit.
Learned counsel further invites our attention
to the averments in the affidavit-in-reply
and also annexures thereto, and submits that,
the Petition may be rejected.
Learned AGP appearing for the
respondent-State submits that, the
petitioners'' claim for appointment as
Anganwadi Sevika is governed by the policy of
State Government under Integrated Child
Development Scheme. The scheme is to be
implemented through the Child Development
Project Officer [Urban] as well as the Deputy
CEO, Child Development, Zilla Parishad, Beed
for rural area. The appointments are made
under the scheme. It is not within the
jurisdiction of respondent no.3 to redress
grievance of the petitioners.
Learned AGP relying upon the
affidavit in reply filed on behalf of
respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that, the
Government Resolution dated 5th August, 2010
was issued for imposing terms and conditions
in respect of appointment of Anganwadi
Sevika, Mini Anganwadi Sevika and Madatnis
for Anganwadi, which came under the
Integrated Child Development Scheme [for
short ''ICD scheme'']. It is submitted that,
Anganwadis from both urban as well as rural
areas are included under the ICD Scheme.
Anganwadi, which is run for population below
400, is called as ''Mini Anganwadi''.
Anganwadi, which is run for population over
and above 400, is called as ''Anganwadi''. It
is submitted that, at Mini Anganwadi there is
post of Anganwadi Sevika only; whereas at
Anganwadi there is post of Anganwadi Sevika
as well as Anganwadi Madatnis. Anganwadis,
which are functioning at rural level, are
under the control of Zilla Parishad, Beed and
Chief Executive Officer is an appointing
authority; whereas the Anganwadis functioning
in urban areas are under the control of
Government and Child Development Project
Officer in the Department working under the
Department of Women and Child Development is
the appointing authority.
It is further submitted that, as can
be seen from the opening para of the
Government Resolution dated 05.08.2010, (A)
there is presumption that if any Balwadi is
already functioning, which is under the
control of either Grampanchayat, Panchayat
Samiti, Zilla Parishad, Mahanagar Palika,
Nagar Palik and Cantonment Board [Katak
Mandale], Social Welfare Department,
Education Department and Central as well as
State Social Welfare Advisory Board, then
there is presumption that the said Balwadi
shall stand closed and the Balwadi Teachers
will be absorbed as Anganwadi Sevika at new
Anganwadi Centers on honorarium and if she
fulfills the eligibility criteria prescribed.
If she is not matriculate then said Balwadi
Teachers will be appointed as Anganwadi
Madatnis. It was made clear that if any
Balwadi is run by NGOs and is getting grant
from any of the Department, still said
teachers from Balwadi shall not be considered
for appointment either as Anganwadi Sevika or
Madatnis. As well as from the above
discussion, it is crystal clear that the
Government Resolution is squarely applicable
to those ladies, who were working as
Balmatas. At this juncture, it is submitted
that, the activities, which are undertaken at
Balwadi, were the same, though there was
difference in the nomenclature such as
Balmata, Balwadi Teacher or Balwadi Tai. It
is submitted that, the Balwadi where the
petitioners appear to be working as alleged
in the Petition as Balmatas are not converted
into Anganwadi as per the norms laid down by
the State Authorities. As and when the
Balwadi where the petitioners are working if
converted into Anganwadi and if the
petitioners fulfill the eligibility
criteria, then certainly the claim of the
petitioners will be considered by the
authorities.
We have considered the submissions
of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent-State, and learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos.4 to 8. With
their able assistance, we have perused the
pleadings in the Petition, annexures thereto,
and replies filed by the respondents. It
appears from the reply filed by respondent
nos.1 and 2 that, the appointments of
Anganwadi Sevika are made by the Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. We
have carefully perused the reasons assigned
in the impugned order dated 11.12.2015
[Exhibit-M Page-70] passed by the Chief
Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed, in
our opinion, stand taken in the impugned
order that, the Zilla Parishad is not
Competent to make an appointment of Anganwadi
Sevika / Madatnis is contrary to the
averments made in the affidavit-in-reply
filed by respondent nos.1 and 2. It is
clearly mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply
filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 that, the
Anganwadis, which are functioning at rural
areas, are under the control of Zilla
Parishad, Beed and the Chief Executive
Officer is the appointing authority. In that
view of the matter, we quash and set aside
the impugned order dated 11.12.2015
[Exhibit-M Page-70], and we direct respondent
nos.3 to 9 to look into the grievances of the
petitioners and take appropriate decision, as
expeditiously as possible, however, within 8
weeks from today. We make it clear that,
respondent nos.3 to 9 are directed to decide
the grievances of the petitioners on merits,
and also keeping in view the relevant
Government Resolutions and/or any other
guidelines issued by the Government or Zilla
Parishad, and shall not reject the said claim
on the ground that, there is no jurisdiction
to decide such claims. We further make it
clear that, we have not considered the
contentions of the petitioners on merits, and
it is for the concerned authority to consider
the case of the petitioners on merits. We
hope and expect that, the concerned Authority
will give an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners by issuing notices to them to
remain present for such hearing.
With the above observations, Writ
Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made
absolute on above terms. The Writ Petition
stands disposed of accordingly.
Unless the petitioners claim are
considered on merits and decided, respondent
nos.3 to 9 shall not issue any appointment
letter on the post of Anganwadi Sevika. In
case the claim of the petitioners are decided
on merits, in that case, the respondents are
free to go ahead with the appointments, if
posts are vacant.
Parties to act upon authenticated
copy of this order.
In view of disposal of Writ Petition
No.4183/2016, Civil Application No.9031/2016
does not survive, and the same stands
disposed of accordingly.