JYOTI W/O RAMPRASAD KAWADE v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR DIVISION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS
Termination of Anganwadi Worker Set Aside: High Court Upholds Natural Justice and Time Limits for Complaints as per Government Resolutions.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:4872
Decision Date: 09-05-2025
List of Laws
Principles of Natural Justice; Government Resolution on Anganwadi Sevika Appointment; Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Scheme; Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act
- Facts: The petitioner, an Anganwadi Madatnis, was appointed based on a Government Resolution requiring a 12th standard pass. A complaint was filed against her appointment by respondent No. 4 after a delay of approximately six months from the publication of the selection list. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, invalidated the petitioner's services without providing her an opportunity for a hearing. The Divisional Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the termination order.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, challenging the orders of the Divisional Commissioner and the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Gondia, which terminated her services.
- Issue: Whether the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, and the Divisional Commissioner, terminating the petitioner's services as Anganwadi Madatnis, are illegal and unsustainable due to violation of principles of natural justice and non-adherence to the prescribed time limit for filing complaints as per the Government Resolution.
- Holding: Yes, the orders passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, and the Divisional Commissioner are illegal and cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed, and the impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The petitioner is to be restored to her original position.
- Reasoning: The Court found that the complaint against the petitioner was entertained after a significant delay, violating the Government Resolution's prescribed 30-day limit for filing objections. The Court emphasized that entertaining the complaint after the prescribed limit is contradictory to the government provisions. Furthermore, the petitioner was not granted an opportunity for a hearing, which constitutes a denial of the principles of natural justice and amounts to arbitrary action. The Court also noted that the Divisional Commissioner did not apply independent mind and failed to consider the illegality committed by the Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. The court relied on Thahira P Vs. Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and others (2018) 6 SCC 446 and Asha Devi Vs. State of H.P. and others 2015 SCC OnLine HP 3201, which emphasized the importance of adhering to timelines and providing a fair hearing.
🔒 For Members Only