The main legal point established in the judgment is that the residence requirement for the appointment of Aanganwadi workers, as per the policies issued by the Women and Child Development Department, was found to be valid and in compliance with constitutional provisions.

M.C. Garg, J.:-

Both the writ appeals raise common question as to whether, the selection for the Aanganwadi worker can be based on geographical residence of the appellant or that only on account of the place of residence, as the appointment cannot be refused has been held by learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 5th October, 2010 which precisely has been challenged before us by way of these writ appeals one filed by Smt. Abhilasha Sharma and other by Smt. Neelam Singh Sikarwar. For the sake of reference, we first take the writ appeal filed by Smt. Abhilasha Sharma. The facts necessary for deciding this writ narrated in para 2 of the impugned order are reproduced as under:

"The respondent No. 1 Saroj Devi/(petitioner) was appointed as Aanganwadi Worker vide order dated 30-10-2007. She was posted at Aanganwadi Center, Sakatpur. The aforesaid order was kept in abeyance vide an order dated 2-11-2007. It was mentioned in the order that due to some clerical mistake the order of appointment of the petitioner was issued. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as Writ Petition 5272/2007 (S). This Court vide order dated 5-3-2008 allowed the petition and quashed the order. The Court also granted liberty to respondents to conduct any inquiry against the petitioner. In pursuance to the aforesaid order the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 was dismissed by the Collector vide order dated 22-4-2008. Then, respondent No. 4 filed review petition which was disposed of vide order dated 25-2-2009 passed in M.C.C. No. 255/2008. This Court passed the following observation in the aforesaid petition:--

As per the petitioner, she is the affective party and she was not made as a party in the petition. The petitioner has filed an appeal which is pending before the Collector, Shivpuri. However, it is clear from the order dated 5-3-2008 that this Court quashed the order Annexure P/1, dated 2-11-2007 on the ground that the aforesaid order was passed without hearing the petitioner. It has clearly been observed in the order that the authorities are free to pass any order after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the appellate authority is free to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. This Court has already given opportunity to the respondents to pass an order after inquiry. If the petitioner has filed any appeal and which is pending, the appellate authority may decide the same in accordance with law as early as possible.

With, the aforesaid observation, this review petition is disposed of. No order as to cost."

Thereafter, the Collector had decided the appeal filed by respondent No. 4 vide order dated 18-3-2010. The Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order of appointment of the petitioner dated 30-10-2007. Against the order passed by the Collector, petitioner preferred a petition before this Court, which was registered, as Writ Petition No. 1489/2010 (S). This Court disposed of the aforesaid petition vide order dated 30-3-2010 with the following directions:--

"Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order dated 18th March, 2010 however as the petitioner is continuing to work on the post of Aanganwadi Worker she shall be permitted to continue as such for a period of sixty-days or till a final order is passed in the matter by the competent authority as directed by the Collector district Shivpuri whichever is earlier. It is needless to mention that the competent authority shall positively decide the matter in issue directed by the Collector district Shivpuri by the impugned order dated 18th March, 2010 positively within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

With the aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to cost.

Certified, copy as per rules."

In accordance with the directions issued by this Court