ANGWADI WORKERS ARE NOT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND THEIR APPOINTMENT IS GOVERNED BY ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTIONS AND CIRCULAR. THE STATE, AS THE PRINCIPAL, IS BOUND BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND CANNOT ACT ARBITRARILY OR DISCRIMINATORILY.

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers:—

“(a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 28.07.2016 (Annex.5) issued by the respondent-Gram Panchayat may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjust and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside;

(b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 (Annex.7) issued by the respondent CDPO qua the private respondent no. 6 may kindly be declared illegal, arbitrary and unjust and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(c) the respondents may kindly be directed to advertise the post of Aanganwari Worker at the Aanganwari Centre, Kankolgarh for proper selection as per the guideline issued vide circular dated 23.07.2015 (Annex.2);

(d) any other appropriate order which is deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be also passed; and

(e) the petitioner may kindly be allowed the cost of writ petition.”

2. In Smt. Chaina Devi v. Gram Panchayat, Surpura Khurd (S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 9648/2016 decided on 20.11.2017), this Court has already followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court rendered in Bidami Devi v. State of Rajasthan (D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 663/2016 decided on 15.09.2016).

3. The order passed by this Court in Smt. Chaina Devi v. Gram Panchayat, Surpura Khurd (supra) reads as under:—

“1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:—

^^vr% Jheku ds le{k izkFkhZ;k pSuknsoh dh vksj ;g ;kfpdk is'k dj fuosnu gS fd vizkFkhZ la-1 xkze iapk;r dk izLrko la-4 fn- 02-10-2015 vkaxuckMh dsUnz la- 74 xkze fgaxksyh] rg- Hkksikyx< ftyk tks/kiqj esa vizkFkhZ la-6 Jhefr jk/kk dks fujLr dj izkFkhZ;k dks vkaxuokMh dsUnz la-74 esa dk;ZdrkZ dk p;u djus dk vkns'k QjekosA^^

2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the matter pertains to appointment as Aganwari Worker, the same is squarely covered by the order passed this Court of Division Bench in Bidami Devi v. State of Rajasthan (D.B Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 663/2016), in which the Hon'ble Court has passed the following order:

“The present appeal arises from order dated 16.5.2016 dismissing S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 4871/2016.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he presses the appeal on a solitary issue whether under all or any circumstances a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution will not lie at the behest of an Anganwadi worker.

There is no controversy with regard to the fact that Anganwadi workers are appointed as agents of the Government for dissemination of a welfare scheme with regard to women and children. The nature of the appointment is contractual governed by administrative directions and circulars. They do not hold a civil post and are not Government employees. Since the relationship is of a principal and agent, the principal can dispense with the services of the agent if not satisfied with the same or after expiry of the duration of appointment and the Court cannot thrust the agent upon an unwilling principal.

But having said so, it has to be kept in mind that the principal is none other than the Government which has to act in accordance with law and the Constitution. It does not have absolute freedom and discretion of a private principal and cannot act on whims and fancy to appoint and discharge agents arbitrarily, in a discriminatory manner, contrary to the administrative guidelines and circulars and more importantly contrary to the principles of natural justice. The State as principal will remain bound by the requirement with Article 14 of the Constitution.

The status of a Anganwadi Worker and nature of protection available to them under Article 226 was considered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in 2004 (2) PLJR 833 (Smt. Sajjan Devi v. State of Bihar). It was observed as fol