PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHAT,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under for the following reliefs:- "a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 16.12.2016 (Annex.12) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Aanganbari Worker in place of private respondent with consequential benefits. b) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. c) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties are in a position to dispute that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of Hon'ble this Court in Bidami Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal Special (Writ) No.663/2016, decided on 15.09.2016 ), the judgment reads as under:- "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 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 hold a civil post and are Government employees. Since the relationship is of a principal and agent, the principal can dispense with the services of the agent if 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 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) PL JR 833 (Smt. Sajjan Devi v. State of Bihar ). It was observed as follows:- "11. The first question to be considered is as to whether the engagement of an Anganwari Sewika is an engagement on a post in the government service. If there engagements are on the posts in the government service and they have been appointed following the procedure, in that case there engagements cannot be cancelled on the ground of misconduct without holding a departmental enquiry as provided under the rules. If in case, they are and holding a post in the government service and their engagements are on the basis of contract of a service under a scheme, then there services can be terminated in terms of the agreement after following the procedure consistent with the requirements of principle of natural Justice. 12. The scheme has been made to provide help to the poor and downtrodden persons covered by the scheme as stated above. Engagement is made only by holding an interview and nor payment of salary is being made nor the appointment is being made against any post in the government service. Honorarium is being paid for performing the duties for a particular period. In case, there services are found satisfactory, they can be removed from the post of Anganwari Sewiks. Term of appointment clearly shows that they are engaged in government service nor are they holding any post in the government service having umbrella of protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. In case, it is found that they are performing duties, for which they were engaged, then in terms of the engagement letter they can be removed. They cannot claim initiation of a regular departmental inquiry prior to their disengagement. 15. Requirement of principle of natural Justice has been complied with and as they are in government service, they cannot claim a regular proceeding prior to disengagement, or removal by treating the aforesaid act as misconduct. Even alternatively it is assumed that they were on temporary employment in the government service then also it is found that the authorities after having taken into consideration their past conduct as a motive and after giving an opportunity of hearing to them have disengaged them and as such they cannot claim any infirmity in their disengagement on the ground of violation of the principles of natural Justice." In (2007) 11 SCC 681 (State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi) the question related to whether an application by an Anganwari worker was maintainable before the State Administrative Tribunal. It does lay down any absolute proposition of law that a writ petition was maintainable at all under Article 226 by Anganwari worker under any circumstances. It only holds that they do occupy a civil post under the government. In this context the observations as follows are considered relevant:- "13. The posts of anganwadi workers are statutory posts. They have been created in terms of the scheme. It is one thing to say that there exists a relationship of employer and employee by and between the State and anganwadi workers but it is another thing to say that they are holders of civil post. 33. The decision, therefore, is an authority for the proposition that those employees who come within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India are not necessarily government servants. A fortiori the State in terms of a scheme may exercise control over a section of the persons working but thereby only, they do not become entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India." The remedy under Article 226 will however be available subject to first availing the alternative remedy as provided under the Government guidelines and circulars. The appeal is disposed."
(3.) In light of the aforementioned precedent law, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms, with a direction to the respondents to decide the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously, if so preferred by the petitioner within a period of fifteen days from today. It is made clear that if any appointment on the same post is made before decision of the appellate authority, then the same shall remain subject to final decision to be taken by the appellate authority.;