The dispute in this petition, primarily and mainly revolves around the status of the petitioner as Anganwadi Worker in an ICDS approved scheme where functionaries in the projects run by the ICDS expenditure are posted in Anganwadis. Anganwadi worker is one of the functionaries posted and constituting the group of other functionaries working in an Anganvadi in either an urban or a rural project constituted under the ICDS scheme. The petitioner submits that she is a civil servant, protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India therefore, once she got appointed on this post, her rights vested in her under Article 311 of the Constitution came to be operative and, therefore, her services cannot be terminated except in accordance with the procedure provided for and prescribed under the aforesaid Article. Respondents deny the petitioners claim and submit that she did not hold a civil post and that her appointment at best could be termed either as a honorary one or contractual basis and that it could be terminated without assigning any reason/or without following any procedure prescribed under law.

The facts are not disputed. The petitioner came to be appointed as an Anganwadi Worker on 6.12.1990 and her honorarium was fixed at Rs. 225/- per month at that time. She was appointed to look after the Anganwadi Centre at Inharra because she was the resident of the area and fulfilled other requisite conditions for appointment. In her order of appointment, it was clearly and specifically mentioned that the appointment shall cease to be effective if she shifted from the area where she was serving. In 1992, the petitioner got married in a place named Chilliwala which was outside the Inharra Panchayat at a distance of over 27 Kms. On 1.9.1994, an order came to be passed by the Programme Officer, ICDS Doda wherein non-functioning of Aganwadi Centre, Inharra due to the marriage of the petitioner was mentioned and in order to-ensure the smooth running of the Centre, respondent No, 5 was appointed as Anganwadi worker casually for a period of 30 days in the first instance. It is this order which is under challenge in this petition on a number of grounds, mainly and primarily as indicated above for violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As per objections filed by the respondents, various facts have been stated starting from the initial appointment of the petitioner on 6.12.1990 and culminating in the issuance of the aforesaid impugned order on 1. 9. 1994 wherein allegations have been levelled against the petitioner for habitually remaining absent from time to time. I am, however, not taking note of either these allegations or the facts submitted by the respondents because, for the views that I propose to take neither these are necessary nor desirable.

It is only a civil servant holding a civil post under Article 311 of the Constitution of India who enjoys the rights guaranteed in that Article and who can complain of the violation of such a right by approaching this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. A person who is nether a civil servant nor holds a civil post cannot, therefore be permitted to complain of the violation of the rights under Article 311 of the Constitution, since no such right under this Article vests in him or her. This is a settled preposition of law, about which there is neither any dispute nor any quarrel. If a person helds a civil post, and complains of violation of Article 311, this court will immediately come to his rescue for enforcing the rights vesting in his favour, If, however, a person complaining is found not holding a civil post, there being no question of vesting in him any right under Article 311. this court finds it impossible to come to his rescue or to grant him any relief in the exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

In the background of this constitutional scheme, therefore, let us examine as to whether the petitioner was holding a civil post under the State and was thus a civi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document