JUDGMENT :

ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.

1. The petitioner is engaged as an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ under the Child Development Project Officer, Canning – I, ICDS Project, South 24-Parganas. The petitioner says that she is residing with her husband and old aged mother-in-law at Village – Chaora, P.O.- Sarisa, P.S.-Diamond Harbour, South 24-Parganas, which is approximately 120 km from her working place, i.e. ICDS Centre at Village – Daria, in Serial No. 196 Centre under Canning – I ICDS Project, District – South 24-Parganas. The petitioner is seeking transfer from her present place of posting to a place nearby to her residence.

2. The issue which surfaced on the previous hearing was that whether an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ can be transferred beyond the zone for which she has been appointed. This is because the whole basis of appointment of an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ is from the nearing areas of the sub-centre for which she is engaged. The advertisements are also published in such a manner that only local residents are permitted to apply for being engaged as ‘Anganwadi Worker’ in the Sub-Centre/Health Centre in an around the Gram Panchayat or Gram Sabha or the Block, as the case may be wherein such person resides.

3. In this context, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed before this Court the Division Bench Judgments respectively dated 11^th December, 2018 passed in MAT No. 211/2017 (Mira Banerjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.) and dated 14^th September, 2023 passed in MAT No. 1794/2022 (Suily Banerjee Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.). In the Judgment in Mira Banerjee (supra), the Court was concerned with a question as to whether the services of an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ is transferrable as it was urged that the order of transfer since the services of an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ is not transferrable was without jurisdiction. The Division Bench, however, was not required to decide on that issue as at the time of final hearing of the appeal, the appellant therein had surpassed the age of superannuation and as such was not permitted to work beyond such age with effect from 4^th January, 2018. The Division Bench, however, noticed that the Memorandum dated 25^th January, 2006 governing the recruitment of ‘Anganwadi Workers’, in particular paragraph 20 therein provided for an embargo in engaging an Anganwadi Worker/Karmi cannot be engaged beyond 60 years of age. In the Judgment of Suily Banerjee (supra), the Memorandum No. 288- SW/35-225/05 dated 25^th January, 2006 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Department of Women and Child Development and Social Welfare for recruitment of ‘Anganwadi Workers’ again fell for consideration. The Division Bench in paragraph 13 of the said Judgment held that there is no express provision for transfer of an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ in the Rules but at the same time, there is no express prohibition for transfer also. The Division Bench then held that the transfer order issued to the appellant which was under challenge was not unjustified in the facts and circumstances of that case.

4. Although, the issue whether the service of an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ is transferable or not has not been directly decided by either of the Judgments of the two Division Benches cited by the appellant but the fact remains that the transfer orders being the subject-matter of the two appeals have not been interfered with even though it was contended that such transfer is impermissible and the order of transfer was without jurisdiction.

5. Going by such Judgments and orders it cannot be, therefor, said that the services of an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ is not transferable otherwise the Division Benches would have interfered with the transfer orders. However, a transfer is dependent on the facts and the circumstances of each case. A transfer order cannot be arbitrary or tainted with illegality or should not appear to be issued for victimizing an ‘Anganwadi Worker’ as laid down in (State of U.P and others vs. Gobardhan Lal, 2004 (11) SCC 402). This is more so bec