Anganwadi worker’s termination must remain in abeyance pending decision on her appeal.

The petitioner was working as an Anganwadi Worker at Anganwadi Centre, Amera-2.

Following alleged irregularities at the Centre, her services were terminated by order dated 21 September 2026.

She challenged the termination, contending that her reply to the show-cause notice had not been properly considered and that the prescribed inquiry procedure had not been followed.

She also challenged a subsequent advertisement dated 24 September 2026 to fill the post.

Whether the petitioner should be directed to pursue the appeal provided under the applicable guideline against her termination.

Whether the termination order and subsequent recruitment advertisement should remain operative while that appeal is pending.

The State Government’s guideline dated 2 April 2008 governs the appointment and removal of Anganwadi Workers and Helpers.

Clause 13 prescribes the removal procedure, including inquiry into a complaint, notice allowing 15 days to respond where a prima facie case exists, consideration of the reply, and the prescribed approval process for removal; clause 13.4 provides an appeal under clause 11 against termination.

The Court applied the principle that an available statutory or administrative appellate remedy may appropriately be pursued, while ensuring that the appeal is decided after a fair opportunity of hearing.

The Court found that the record disclosed lapses in issuing notices, conducting the inquiry, and presenting the petitioner’s case, and that the authorities’ process appeared hasty.

Rather than decide the merits of the termination in the writ petition, the Court directed the petitioner to use the appeal mechanism under the guideline.

It required the appellate authority to hear the parties and decide the appeal independently, without being influenced by the Court’s observations.

The appellate authority must decide it, after giving the parties a proper and sufficient opportunity of hearing, within four months of its filing.

Until then, the termination order is to remain in abeyance and the petitioner is to be permitted to work at the Centre; the subsequent advertisement is also to remain in abeyance, in each case subject to the appeal’s outcome.

The Court expressed no opinion on the merits.