High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2023-09-19Writ petition disposed of

Anitha Varghese v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C)NO.6171OF2023

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Raja Vijayaraghavan V.
Judgment Date: 2023-09-19
Court Decision / Holding: (i) The appointment of the 5th and 6th respondents to the post of permanent Anganwadi workers with the 3rd respondent Panchayat is quashed. (ii) There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider re-engagement of the petitioner in the 3rd respondent Panchayat on a contract basis in terms of Ext.P7, and the Panchayat shall decide in accordance with law.
Final Disposition: Writ petition disposed of

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Anitha Varghese

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare
District Collector, Pathanamthitta
Kadapra Panchayat (represented by its Secretary)
Child Development Project Officer, Pulikeezhu, Valanjavattom
Sujatha Kumari Kannassamparampl, Valanjavattom
Anandeshwari Thundiparambl, Valanjavattom

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Paul Jacob (P)
• Sheru Joseph
• Mathew Thomas
• Anand Krishna

Counsels for Respondents

• K. N. Radhakrishnan (Advocate) (for State/Respondents)

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioner, Anitha Varghese, seeks a declaration that the appointment of the 5th and 6th respondents as permanent Anganwadi workers in Kadapra Panchayat is illegal and an order to re-engage the petitioner on a contract basis until a proper selection procedure for Anganwadi posts is in place. The short facts reveal that although a 2016 decision to appoint permanent Anganwadi workers was made, the process stalled and the published rank list contained ineligible names, prompting cancellation by the Panchayat. During 2016–2023 the petitioner worked as a temporary Anganwadi worker. In 2023, following a Circular by the Directorate of Women and Child Development to finalize the rank list, the 4th respondent allegedly selected the 5th and 6th respondents on 13.02.2023; the petitioner points to Ext.P4 (Attendance) and Ext.R5(a) to show the appointments were improper. The petitioner relies on Ext.P7, a single-judge judgment, which held that if Anganwadi posts are not filled per government rules, retired employees may be engaged on a contract basis. The respondents dispute this, arguing the 4th respondent’s appointment was legal under Ext.P3 GO and that reservation criteria were satisfied. The court examines Sec.166(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and the Third Schedule (Category C, Social Welfare, including Anganwadis), noting the Village Panchayat’s exclusive power to administer these matters subject to government assistance. It holds Ext.P4 beyond permissible government authority and distinguishes the petitioner’s arguments. The court ultimately quashes the 5th and 6th respondents’ permanent appointments and directs the 3rd respondent to consider re-engaging the petitioner on a contract basis, consistent with Ext.P7 and due process, while preserving Panchayat autonomy under the Act. The judgment underscores the independence of Panchayat institutions and their statutory domain in administering Anganwadis.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 166(2)Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Third Schedule (Category C, Sl. No. 1) – Social Welfare (Running of Anganwadis)Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, Section 191Constitution of India Part IX (Panchayats)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Independence of Panchayat Raj institutions as envisaged by the Constitution and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994
Exclusive power of Village Panchayat to administer matters enumerated in the Third Schedule (Social Welfare) including Anganwadis
Government power under Section 166(2) to issue guidelines does not extend to directing individual appointments under the Act

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner argued that there is no transparent, lawfully sanctioned procedure for appointing Anganwadi workers. The 2016 rank list was cancelled over ineligible names, and the 4th respondent’s post-appointment actions (Ext.P4) show government intervention beyond what Section 166(2) permits. The 7th judgment Ext.P7 supports contract engagement for those not appointed per government rules, and reliance on the Government’s authority to appoint under Ext.P4 is misplaced. The Village Panchayat has exclusive control over Anganwadis and its independence is protected by constitutional amendments and the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The appointment of 5th and 6th respondents must be set aside, and the petitioner should be re-engaged on a contract basis while due process is ensured.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the 4th respondent had authority to appoint under Ext.P3 GO, and that the selected candidates satisfied reservation criteria. They argued the actions were legal and consistent with the Government’s directives to finalize the rank list and to supply resources for Anganwadis; Ext.P4 was issued within the permissible scope of government participation under the Act.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Valanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala	2006 (1) KLT 425	Positive	It is cited to support the proposition that the Village Panchayat has exclusive power to administer Anganwadis under Section 166(2) and Third Schedule, and that government directives cannot override Panchayat autonomy.
W.P.(C). No. 14429/2005 and connected cases	W.P.(C). No. 14429/2005	Mentioned Only	Referenced for constitutional background on Panchayat independence; not directly distinguished or cited as a controlling authority in the present case.
WP(C) 24893 of 2018	WP(C) 24893 of 2018	Mentioned Only	Cited in Appendix exhibits indicating prior judgments; not central to the legal reasoning here.
WP(C) 12966 of 2021	WP(C) 12966 of 2021	Mentioned Only	Cited in Appendix exhibits; referenced for prior jurisprudence but not treated as binding in the conclusion.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Anitha Varghese v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV TUESDAY,THE19[TH]DAYOFSEPTEMBER2023/28THBHADRA,1945 WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ANITHAKVARGHESE,AGED38YEARS KALUNKILHOUSE,VALANJAVATTOMP.O THIRUVALLA.,PIN-689104 ``` ``` BYADVS. PAULJACOB(P) SHERUJOSEPH MATHEWTHOMAS ANANDKRISHNA ``` ## **`- RESPONDENTS :`** - **`1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE`** - **`DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001`** ``` DISTRICTCOLLECTOR 2NDFLOOR,DISTRICTCOLLECTORATE, PATHANAMTHITTA.,PIN-689645 ``` ``` 3KADAPRAPANCHAYAT REPRESENTEDBYITSSECRETARY, KADAPRAPANCHAYAT,NIRANOMP.O., THIRUVALLA.,PIN-689621 ``` - **`4 CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER PULIKEEZHU NEAR PULIKEEZHU BLOCK OFFICE VALANJAVATTOM PO THIRUVALLA., PIN - 689104`** - **`5 SUJATHA KUMARI KANNASSAMPARAMPIL VALANJAVATTOM P.O THIRUVALLA., PIN - 689104`** - **`6 ANANDESWARI THUNDIPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALANJAVATTOM P.O THIRUVALLA., PIN - 689104`** ## **`BY ADV K.N.RADHAKRISHNAN (THIRUVALLA)`** ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON ``` ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`19.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:`** ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** This petition is filed seeking a declaration that the appointment of the 5th and 6th respondents as permanent Anganwadi workers with the Kadapra Panchayat is illegal and for a further direction to the respondents 1 to 4 to re-engage the petitioner on a contract basis until a selection procedure to the post of Anganwadi workers is put in place. 2. Short facts are as under: The petitioner states that in the year 2016, the Panchayat decided to appoint permanent Anganwadi workers. However, the process got delayed. When the ranked list was finally published, complaints were raised that ineligible persons had been included. In the said circumstances, the Panchayat took a decision to cancel the rank list. The petitioner asserts that during all these periods, i.e., from 2016 to 2023, the petitioner has been working as a temporary Anganwadi worker. While so, in the year 2023, a Circular was issued by the Directorate of Women and Child Development to finalize the rank list and to publish the same before 28.2.2023. Fearing disciplinary action, the Child Development Project Officer, the 4th respondent, is stated to have selected respondents 5 and 6 randomly. The petitioner refers to Ext.P4 Attendance Register and contends that respondents 5 and 6 joined duty on 13.2.2023. According to the petitioner, the appointment of the 5th and 6th respondents to the post of permanent Anganwadi workers is clearly illegal. ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` According to the petitioner, there is no clear and established procedure for appointing Anganwadi workers. It is also contended that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment has held that if posts of Anganwadi workers are not filled up in accordance with the Government Rules, the employees who have retired from the posts can be engaged on a contract basis. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs: - (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or in the nature of a declaration quashing the appointment of the 5th and 6th respondents to the post of permanent Anganwadi worker with the 3rd respondent panchayat. - (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or in the nature of a declaration directing respondents 1 to 4 to re-engage the petitioner in the 3rd respondent panchayat, on a contract basis till a selection procedure to the post of Anganwadi workers is brought in by due process of law. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4th respondent, justifying the appointment of respondents 5 and 6 and also contending that the decision taken by the Panchayat Committee is legal and cannot be interfered with. 4. The respondents 5 and 6 have also filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondents 5 and 6 have been appointed by the Child Welfare Officer, Pulikkezhu Block Panchayat, by Ext.R5(a) order. It is further stated that prior to selection, their qualification was ascertained, and they were appointed by fully satisfying the reservation criteria. 5. Sri.Paul Jacob, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` would refer to Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, and specifically to sector-wide functions shown in Schedule III. It is submitted that the Village Panchayat would have the exclusive power to administer matters relating to running of Anganwadis and the only requirement is that it has to be subjected to the other provisions of the Act and guidelines. According to the learned counsel, the Panchayat Committee, on receipt of the complaint from various quarters, had decided to cancel the rank list, as it is evident from Ext.P2. The same persons whose names were mentioned in Ext.P2 and whose inclusion in the selection list was cancelled have been re-appointed by the 4th respondent without the concurrence of the Panchayath. The learned counsel would also refer to the law laid down by this Court in **Valanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. State of Kerala**[1] and it is argued that action taken by the 4th respondent would amount to nullifying the independence of Panchayat Raj institutions as envisaged by the amendments to the Constitution of India, followed by the making of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. The learned counsel would further point out that in Ext.P7 judgment, this Court has held that unless the post of Anganwadi workers are filled up in accordance with Government Rules, guidelines, regulations, and the general orders mentioned with the judgment, the employees who had retired from the post shall be engaged on a contract basis till persons engaged by due process of law are brought in. > 1 [2006 (1) KLT 425] ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` 6. The learned Government Pleader, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, contended that the action taken is legal and proper. It is submitted that the 4th respondent is vested with the powers on the strength of the Ext.P3 Government Order to grant appointment to respondents 5 and 6. 7. I have considered the submission advanced. Section 166 (2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act reads as follows :- “(2) Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the guidelines and assistance financial, technical or otherwise, of the Government, the village panchayat shall have exclusive power to administer the matters enumerated in the Third Schedule and to prepare and implement schemes relating thereto for economic development and social justice]” 8. Category (C) under the Third Schedule of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act provides for sector-wise functions. Item XIII under category (C) deals with Social Welfare. Item No. 1 under Social Welfare deals with the running of Anganwadis. In other words, on a conjoint reading of Section 166(2) and the relevant clause in the Schedule, it would be evident that the Village Panchayat would have the exclusive power to administer matters relating to the running of Anganwadis and the only requirement is that it has to be subject to the other provisions of the Act and guidelines and financial, technical or other assistance of the Government. In other words, it is for the Village Panchayat to decide matters relating to the running of Anganwadis. In **Valanchery** ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.** (supra), this Court has occasion to observe in paragraphs Nos. 5 to 7 of the judgment. 5. S.166(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) provides as follows: “166(2). Subject to the other provisions of this Act and the guidelines and assistance financial, technical or otherwise, of the Government, the Village Panchayat shall have exclusive power to administer the matters enumerated in the Third Schedule and to prepare and implement schemes relating thereto for economic development and social justice.” “Running of Anganwadi” is the subject entered at Sl.No.1 under the Head XIII-Social Welfare under Category C -Sector-wise Functions in Schedule III. 6. So much so, going by S.166(2), a Village Panchayat shall have exclusive power to administer matters relating to running of anganwadies and the only requirement is that it has to be subject to the other provisions of the Act and guidelines and financial, technical or other assistance of the Government. It is for the Village Panchayat to decide matters relating to running of anganwadies. 7. The issuance of Ext. P4 directing the Panchayat to permit the 4th respondent to supply food articles to Anganwadies is necessarily in the nature of taking a decision that cannot be characterised as issuing any guidelines. The quality of the Governmental participation, in view of sub-s.(2) of S.166, cannot extend to issuing directions as has been done in the nature of Ext. P4. If any authority in excess of what is stated above "is assumed to be available with the Government, in my considered view, it will even nullify the independence of the Panchayat Raj institutions as envisaged by the amendments to the Constitution of India, followed by the making of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 by which the situation available before that has been changed. A survey of the provisions in Part IX of the Constitution ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` of India would show the genesis of a Panchayat and the differentiation between the Panchayats conceived of in Part IX from the Panchayats that were provided for by the statutory provisions before the introduction of Part IX into the Constitution. The Panchayats so constituted are constitutional institutions and their birth and existence are dependent on the mechanism provided for, in the Constitution itself. (See the judgment in W. P. (C). No. 14429/2005 and connected cases). Viewed in this backdrop, the power of the Government to issue any guidelines under S.166(2) of the Act can relate only to "issuing guidelines" and not to interfere or issue directions in individual cases. The case in hand is not one where the Government was exercising authority under S.191 of the Act. So much so, the contents of Ext. P4 are without the sanction of law and hence without authority. 9. In view of the statutory provisions and the principles of the law laid down in **Valanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra),** the contention of the petitioner that Ext.P2 minutes of the Panchayat is valid and legal, and will have to be accepted. 10. Now, the question is as to whether the 4th respondent is empowered to appoint respondents 5 and 6. In view of Section 166(2) and the law laid down in **Valanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra),** I am of the considered opinion that the said action taken by the 4th respondent cannot be sustained under law. 11. Now the question is whether the directions can be issued to respondents 1 to 4 to re-engage the petitioner in the 3rd respondent ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` Panchayat on a contract basis until a selection procedure is put in place in accordance with law for the post of Anganwadi workers that is broken by the due process of law. In the instant case, the Panchayat has not recorded their appearance before this Court. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that such a decision will have to be taken by the Panchayat itself. It is for the petitioner to approach the Panchayat and seek re-engagement on a contract basis. Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered as under :- (i) The appointment of the 5th and 6th respondents to the post of permanent Anganwadi workers with the 3rd respondent Panchayat will stand quashed. (ii) There will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider re-engagement of the petitioner in the 3rd respondent Panchayat in terms of the observations and directions issued in Ext.P7. The 3rd respondent shall be entitled to take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE** SMA ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 10 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6171/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-`** |**`Exhibit `**|**`P1`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES BOOK DATED 27.08.2016`**| |---|---|---| |||**`OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT`**| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P2`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING DATED`**| |||**`26.08.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT`**| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P3`**|**`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`CIRCULAR`** **`NO.`**| |||**`DWCD/190/2023-ICDSB4`** **`DATED`** **`03.02.2023`** **`ISSUED`**| |||**`BY`** **`THE`** **`DIRECTORATE`** **`OF`** **`WOMEN`** **`AND`** **`CHILD`**| |||**`DEVELOPMENT`**| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P4`**|**`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`ATTENDANCE`** **`REGISTER`** **`OF`** **`THE`**| |||**`3RD RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT FOR FEBRUARY, 2023`**| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P5`**|**`TRUE`** **`EXTRACT`** **`OF`** **`GO.`** **`NO.`** **`74/2012/SJD`** **`DATED`**| |||**`22.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`**| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P6`**|**`TRUE`** **`COPY`** **`OF`** **`THE`** **`JUDGMENT`** **`OF`** **`THIS`** **`HON'BLE`**| |||**`COURT DATED 26.11.2019 IN WP(C) 24893 OF 2018`**| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P7`**|**`TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.12.2021 IN`**| |||**`WP(C) 12966 OF 2021`**| |**`Exhibit `**|**`P8`**|**`True`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`RTI`** **`reply`** **`dated`** **`11.04.2023`**| |||**`issued by the 4th respondent`**| ## **`- RESPONDENT EXHIBITS :`** |**`Exhibit `**|**`R4(a)`**|**`True`** **`copy`**|**`of`**|**`GO(MS)`** **`No.`**|**`58/2008/SWD`**|**`dated`**| |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| |||**`22.10.2008 `**|**`of `**|**`Social Welfare `**|**`Department`**|| |**`Exhibit `**|**`R4 (b)`**|**`True`** **`copy`**|**`of`**|**`GO(MS)`** **`No.`**|**`74/2012/SJD`**|**`dated`**| |||**`22.12.2012 `**|**`of `**|**`Social Welfare `**|**`Department`**|| |**`Exhibit `**|**`R4 (c)`**|**`True`** **`copy`**|**`of`**|**`GO(MS)`** **`No.`**|**`10/2013/SJD`**|**`dated`**| |||**`01.02.2013 `**|**`of `**|**`Social Welfare `**|**`Department`**|| |**`Exhibit `**|**`R4 (e)`**|**`True`** **`copy`**|**`of`**|**`the`** **`proceedings`** **`No.`** **`A4-5669/19`**||| |||**`dated`** **`07.09.2019`** **`of`** **`Kadapra`**|||**`Grama`** **`Panchayath`**|| ``` WP(C)NO.6171OF2023 ``` ``` 11 ``` ## **`01.02.2013 of Social Welfare Department`** |||**`01.02.2013 of Social Welfare `**|**`Department`**|**`Department`**| |---|---|---|---|---| |**`Exhibit `**|**`R4 (g)`**|**`True`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Order`**|**`WCD/PTA/A4-1687/22`**|| |||**`dated`** **`06.02.023`** **`of`** **`District`** **`Women`** **`and`**||**`Child`**| |||**`Development officer`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`R4 (h)`**|**`True`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`minutes`**|**`of`** **`Kadapra`**|**`Grama`**| |||**`Panchayath dated 26.08.2020`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`R4 (i)`**|**`True`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`letter`** **`No.`** **`ICDS/PK2/210/18`**||| |||**`dated 25.09.2020`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`R4 (f)`**|**`True`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`** **`Order`**|**`WCD/PTA/90/06/2019`**|| |||**`dated`** **`08.11.2019`** **`of`** **`District`** **`Women`** **`and`**||**`Child`**| |||**`Development Department, Pathanamthitta`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`R4 (d)`**|**`True`** **`copy`** **`of`** **`the`**|**`proceedings`**|**`No.`**| |||**`ICDS/B4-23176/12`** **`dated`** **`26.02.2016`** **`of`**||**`Social`**| |||**`Welfare Department`**||| |**`Exhibt `**|**`R5(a)`**|**`The Copy of the Order dated `**|**`10.02.2023 `**|**`of the`**| |||**`Child`** **`Development`** **`Officer,`**|**`Pulikeezhu`**|**`Block`**| |||**`Panchayat`**|||