S CHITRA Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was appointed as Anganwadi Worker as it is seen in the order of the first respondent/District Collector Dated 21.11.2009. By the impugned order dated 31.12.2009 passed by the second respondent, the petitioner came to be terminated from the service on the ground of certain information that she is not living in the same village but living in the adjacent village.

(2.) Even though in the Appointment Order dated 21.11.2009, it is stated that if any complaint is received about the qualification of the petitioner, on proof, she can be terminated at any point of time, such termination is expected to be only after informing the petitioner about the complaint received and passing orders after giving due opportunity to the petitioner. In the present case, the impugned order shows that, in the enquiry, it is revealed that the petitioner is not living in the same village but in the adjacent village.

(3.) If really as per the qualification required for appointment of Anganwadi Worker, a person has to be resided either in the same village or within a certain distance of 10 Kms., and if there is violation in respect of the same, certainly, the petitioner is entitled to be heard by giving due opportunity to her. Such opportunity is admittedly not given as it is seen in the impugned order.