- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
(2.) THE instant writ petition has been preferred for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to implement the direction issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development Department of Women and Child Development, Government of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi dated 2nd January, 1996 and two subsequent circulars dated 28th October, 1996 and 5th November, 2009. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was an Anganwari Sewika at Bhelwatoli in Angara Block with effect from August, 1998 and continued on the said post. Thereafter, she desired to contest the election of Mukhia from the area Rahe Panchayat of Ranchi District and consequently resigned from her post on 11th November, 2010 and contested the election held in the State of Jharkhand. It appears that she was not elected and thereafter she wanted to join back the post of Anganwari but she was not allowed to do so. Hence, the writ petition. The claim of the petitioner is that her fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has been infringed on account of arbitrary and illegal action of respondents since the direction of the Central Government has been violated. The next submission is that the post of Anganwari Sewika is not a post of profit and, therefore, she should be directed to continue on the said post.
(3.) I have perused the three circulars which is only for the limited purpose. In that case, such Anganwari Sevika intended to contest the election should not be restrained only because they are serving as Sevika, sicne it is not a permanent post and it is only honorarium that is given to him. However the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted in this writ petition because she resigned from the said post for contesting the election and came again after having lost. She again desires to permit her to join back on the post of Anganwari Sewika. The prayer in the writ petition is absolutely frivolous and cannot be allowed and no direction can be issued to the respondents as the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that there is a legal right which has been violated and despite making request the authorities have refused to grant her relief which she is legally entitled to.;