Judgment & Order (Oral)

[1] Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

[2] These writ petitions being WP(C) 218 of 2024, WP(C) 219 of 2024, WP(C) 220 of 2024, WP(C) 221 of 2024, WP(C) 222 of 2024 and WP(C) 223 of 2024 have been filed by the petitioners challenging the same Notice vide No. F.1(33)-CDPO/DNB/ICDS/2022-2023/1694(11) dated 26.02.2024 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Dumburnagar ICDS Project. The reliefs sought for in these writ petitions are also similar in nature. Hence, the present writ petitions are taken up analogously for consideration and disposal in a common judgment.

[3] It is the case of the petitioners that by virtue of an advertisement dated 21.12.2022 applications were invited from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Worker/Anganwadi Helper under Dumburnagar RD Block and Raishyabari RD Block. The petitioners submitted their respective applications and they have been selected and their services were engaged vide Engagement Orders dated 8th August, 2023. Thereafter, the petitioners were conducting the services as Anganwadi Workers/Helpers. To the surprise of the petitioners, the respondents have issued a notice vide No.F.1(33)-CDPO/DNB/ICDS/2022-2023/1694(11) dated 26.02.2024 and proceeded for new selection. In the said notice, it was mentioned that recruitment of Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers pursuant to advertisement dated 21.12.2022 would be cancelled and all the candidates who had applied to the earlier advertisement were requested to attend personal interview again on 06.03.2024. Aggrieved thereby, under apprehension that the petitioners would be deprived of the engagement of works, they have filed the present writ petitions in the year 2024. Since then, the petitioners have not chosen to attend the work. As per the clauses in the engagement letters of the petitioners, it categorically indicates that the engagement of their services is on temporary basis and the same will be on ‘No Work No Honorarium’ basis. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that since the petitioners are not paid any wages, they are facing hardships and prayed to permit them to continue with their services so that they can get the payments for the wages. It is further argued that the reason for issuing second time notification for engagement of services duo to the complaints that have been received from a political party or in some other matters there has been no political party involvement but, only at the behest of the local people with regard to certain disqualification of the petitioners, the complaints have been filed. In view of the same, the petitioners apprehended that their services would be disengaged. Therefore, the present writ petitions have been filed. The respondents have filed their respective counter-affidavits in connection with the respective writ petitions.

[4] Mr. Koomar Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in case No. WP(C) 219 of 2024, WP(C) 220 of 2024 and WP(C) 222 of 2024 has contended that since the petitioners were engaged on temporary basis, they cannot be replaced by another set of temporary employees and the only option would be left to replace them is through the permanent/regular employment process. To support his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed in Manish Gupta and another vs. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti and others reported in (2022) 15 SCC 540.

[5] Mr. B. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI appearing for the respondent Union of India submits before this Court that as stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Union of India, the role of the said respondent is very limited and it is confined for releasing only the part of payment of the total honorarium. It is also contended that the respondent Union of India is not involved in any selection /engaging the services and so on. Mr. Majumder, learned Dy. SGI further submits that the entire burden of selection lies with the State Government.

[6] Mr. P. Gautam, learned Sr. GA and Mr. D. Sarma, learned Addl. G.A. appearing on behalf of respective State-respondent(s) submit before this Court that the petitioners were engaged in terms of the notification issued in the year 2022 and their services were never disengaged. They only voluntarily stopped attending their work presuming that their engagement was discontinued. Insofar as, the subsequent notice vide No.F.1(33)-CDPO/DNB/ICDS/2022-2023/1694(11) dated 26.02.2024 is concerned, that was an initiative taken in view of the complaints made by the local people and also a political party making a request that the guidelines covering the scheme to be followed and the local people should be given preference, that too, the persons belonging to Autonomous District Council (ADC) area where the people of Scheduled Tribes are residing and their interests to be protected.

[7] It is further contended on behalf of the State-respondents that as per point No.2 of the guidelines, there is also an important criteria which falls for consideration is that the applicants should be the normal residents of the locality/village. In addition to the same, it is also contended on behalf of the State respondents that since the petitioners were not disengaged and if they are only apprehended their services are being disengaged, it is always open for them to approach the concerned authorities along with their credentials and continue with their services. For the purpose of reference, the contents from the point No.2 of the guidelines for engagement of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs)/ Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) on Honorary basis issued by the Special Secretary, Education (SW & SE) Department, circulated through the Notification vide No.F.1(1-21)-ICDS/SWE/2018/5271(100) dated 17.01.2019 is extracted as under:

               “2. Eligibility Criteria:

               Only such female married / widow candidates are eligible to apply for the post of Anganwadi Worker/ Anganwadi Helper who are:

               a) Normal residents of the village (in case of Rural Area) /ward (in case of Urban Area) where Anganwadi Centre is located and belongs to the feeder villages / wards of the Anganwadi area.

               b) Freezing of the list of families being covered in the feeder area of the AWC will be ensured before starting the selection process and advertising of vacancies with due publicity. Only the residents of the areas as above will be entitled to apply. If the candidates are not available within the feeder area, applications can be invited from the desirous candidates residing within the area of the concerned Gram Panchayat/Ward.

               c) For Anganwadi Worker minimum qualification shall be Matriculate and for Anganwadi Helper minimum qualification shall be Class - VIII passed.

               d) Age between 18-45 years; 5 years relaxation for SC/ST/ Divyangjan (Differently able) candidates….”

[8] It is further contended on behalf of the State-respondents that for providing opportunity to new candidates so that a new family would be benefited by the source of employment instead of continuing extension of benefits to the same persons all through, it was necessary to publish another advertisement once again and it was mentioned in the notice dated 26.02.2024 that the engagement of the petitioners may be cancelled as a fresh interview was called on 06.03.2024. It is also stated that no decision has yet been taken by the respondent-department and the said Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers have not yet been disengaged from their services. But, they wilfully, under the apprehension of disengagement of services, not attending their works and have preferred these instant petitions which are liable to be dismissed by this Court. It is therefore, argued on behalf of the State respondents that the said judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, cannot be applied to the facts of the case.

[9] Heard the submissions made at the Bar. Perused the material evidence on record.

[10] Admittedly, the petitioners applied in terms of the advertisement dated 21.12.2022 and their services have been obtained as Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers and engagement letters were also issued. After going through the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitioners and also upon hearing the arguments advanced, there is no impugned order that was under challenge to say that there has been deprivation of the legitimate rights of the petitioners in disengaging them from their services. It is a case where only under the apprehension, the petitioners after perusal of the subsequent notice dated 26.02.2024, have refrained themselves from attending their work. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners were disengaged from services or they were injuncted from rendering their services. If there has been any case of restraining by the respondents, the petitioners could have moved this Court by way of an appropriate application seeking to permit them to work and also to draw their wages for the working days. But, no such steps have been taken on behalf of the writ petitioners.

[11] The counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the State respondents categorically indicate that the very object of the scheme to engage the eligible persons by providing employment in Anganwadi is to see that immediate attention is provided to the needy people in the village and this is only possible if a person from the locality/village is engaged. It appears from the complaints made by the local people that the writ petitioners are non-locals and they are residing in distant areas. Though the classifications in the advertisement indicate Village Council (VC), Block etc., the argument advanced on behalf of the State respondents appears to be cogent that the Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers should be available at the time of any urgency in case of any exigencies.

[12] The issue now falls for consideration is whether the petitioners fulfil the requirements under the guidelines on the point of local residence and any other issues. In the absence of any disengagement letter, the question of deciding the matter that the petitioners are aggrieved by any impugned order does not arise and this Court has no hesitation to say that the writ petitions are premature and the same have been filed only under apprehension. The subsequent advertisement by way of notice dated 26.02.2024 stated to have been filed does not indicate that the services of the petitioners have been annulled, rather the said fresh notification came to be issued only for selection of new set of Anganwadi Workers/Anganwadi Helpers. Since this Court is of the opinion that this is a premature writ petition, the same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. It is also opined that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present cases.

[13] However, in the event, if the petitioners feel that they are equally eligible and their services are not disengaged as stated in the counter affidavit and to put a quietus to this disputed question of fact on the point of disqualification, it is always open for them to approach the DM & Collector under the guidelines alongwith their credentials and on receipt of the same, their matters would be examined and the same would be decided by the concerned respondents under the law and scheme. It is therefore ordered that, the petitioners, if so advised, may approach the concerned DM & Collector on or before 15th day of July, 2026 and on receipt of such application, the same be decided by the concerned official respondents on or before 31st day of July, 2026.

[14] With the above observations and directions, the present writ petitions stand disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous application(s), pending if any shall also stand closed.