Gohil, J. -- 1. The appellant, who is working on the post of Aanganwadi Worker and whose services were dismissed, has filed this writ appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of writ petition passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition' (S) No. 1595/2004 on 7.4.2006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is permanent resident of village Chhirwaha and she was duly appointed on the post of Aanganwadi Worker in the year 2000 after following due procedure. It was the case of the appellant that she successfully completed the training period and after the appointment she was duly discharging her duties to the satisfaction of the higher authorities and there was no complaint against her. By order dated 12.7.2004 passed by respondent No.2 Project Officer, Integrated Child Development Scheme, the services of the appellant were terminated from the post of Aanganwadi Worker on the basis of recommendations of the Gram Panchayat.

3. It was the case of the appellant that the procedure for removal has been prescribed by the State Government. Earlier the policy instructions were issued on 29.10.1996 (Annexure P-3) and now by another order dated 2.3.2002, the new policy instruction has been issued, which is Annexure R -1. It was also the case of the appellant that before terminating her services, no opportunity of hearing was granted to her. The resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat on 16.4.2007 and it was approved by the Gram Sabha by another resolution dated 1.7.2004. It was also disputed that the resolution dated 1.7.2004 was passed by Sarpanch as in the resolution it has not been mentioned that who were the members present in the meeting while passing the resolution. It was further argued that the Project Officer was not authorised under the Panchayat Act and since the resolution passed by Gram Sabha was not appealable under the Panchayat Act, directly writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging her termination order dated 12.7.2004.

4. The stand of the respondents No.1 and 2/State Government in their return was that the State Government has issued fresh circular dated 2.3.2002 regarding appointment and removal of the Aanganwadi Worker. It was further submitted that Gram Panchayat Chhirwaha passed the resolution dated 16.4.2004 indicating that the appellant is not discharging duty properly and the centre remained closed since last so many months and the Aanganwadi helper had already expired, therefore, as the centre is not running properly, petitioner be removed from the post of Aanganwadi Worker. On receiving the resolution, Project Officer directed to make an inquiry and thereafter Supervisor conducted an inquiry and submitted its report and found that the Aanganwadi centre of the village Chhirwaha is not running regularly and therefore Aanganwadi Worker be removed. The report is dated 29.6.2004, which has been placed at Annexure R-2. It was also submitted that later on the resolution of the Gram Panchayat was approved by the Gram Sabha and it was submitted that the Project Officer is the authority to remove the Aanganwadi Worker and it was the objection of the State Government that the order passed by the Project Officer is appealable and directly this petition is not maintainable. It was also the stand of the State Government that the decision in the case of Maya Chouhan v. State of M.P. and others [Writ Petition No. 988/2000] decided on 6.11.2001 is distinguishable as the aforesaid judgment is based on circular of 1996. Before the writ Court, the return was not filed either by the Project Officer or by the Gram Panchayat, Chhirwaha.

5. After considering the submissions, Writ Court found that the order passed by Gram Sabha is appealable and the order was passed following the provisions of new circular dated 2.3.2002 and the case is not covered by the decision in the case of Maya Chouhan