HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34568 of 2012 Petitioner :- Smt. Sarita Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Arun Kumar Mishra Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajes Kumar,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Sri B.D. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6.
It appears that the petitioner has been selected on the post of Aaganwadi Karyakatri. The respondent no. 6 has filed a complaint dated 26.2.2011, challenging the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that in the income certificate, the income has been wrongly shown while the income of the husband of the petitioner, who was the dental doctor, was Rs.3,000/- per month and has a Pakka House.
It appears that the respondent no. 6 has been appointed as the Aaganwadi Karyakatri. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 57728 of 2011 challenging the appointment of respondent no. 6 on the post of Aaganwadi Karyakatri on the ground that her appointment was made without cancelling the selection and the appointment of the petitioner. The said writ petition has been finally disposed of on 23.11.2011. At the time of hearing, Smt. Rukmani Devi, CDPO, was present but she could not produce any certificate by which the petitioner's selection has been cancelled. In view of the above, this Court has set aside the appointment of Ragni Singh on the post of Aaganwadi Karyakatri and thereafter directed the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari to pass an order either appointing the petitioner in view of the selection made or pass the appropriate order cancelling her selection, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6. The District Magistrate, Varanasi was also directed to look into the matter and make an inquiry that without cancelling the selection of the petitioner why the respondent no. 6 Ragni Singh has been appointed as the Aaganwadi Karyakatri and take appropriate action against the officers/officials involved in making such appointment.
In pursuance of the order of this Court, it appears that Smt. Rukmani Devi, CDPO issued a notice to the petitioner as well as respondent no. 6 Ragni Singh dated 19.11.2012. Smt. Rukmani Devi, Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Pindra, Varanasi passed an order dated 29.3.2012. By this order, the appointment of Ragni Singh has been cancelled. This order has been passed in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 57728 of 2011. The copy of this order is Annexure-15 to the writ petition. In the said order nothing has been said about the appointment or the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner while a direction was given by this Court to the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari to pass a fresh order after considering the appointment or the cancellation of the petitioner's selection. The petitioner has annexed the copy of the order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the District Magistrate, Varanasi by which the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. Smt. Rukmani Devi, CDPO, was found guilty for her action and a direction has also been given for taking necessary action against her.
The petitioner is challenging the order of the District Magistrate, Varanasi cancelling the selection of the petitioner on the ground that the District Magistrate had not been given any direction to consider the selection/ appointment or cancellation of the selection. Such direction had been given only to the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Pindra, Varanasi and thus the District Magistrate, Varanasi had no jurisdiction to cancell the selection of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing.
The Court finds merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel states that some time may be allowed to seek instruction.
Let the learned Standing Counsel may seek instruction that why Smt. Rukmani Devi, Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Pindra, Varanasi has not complied with the order of this Court dated 23.11.2011 and has not adjudicated the issue as directed by this Court, namely, about the selection/appointment or the cancellation of selection of Smt. Sarita Devi.
(i) Once the selection of Smt. Ragni Singh has already been set aside by this Court, there was no further need to cancel the appointment of Smt. Sarita Devi.
(ii) When a direction was given to the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Pindra, Varanasi to consider the selection/ appointment or cancellation of the selection of Smt. Sarita Devi and not to the District Magistrate, Varanasi how the District Magistrate, Varanasi has cancelled the selection of the petitioner.
Both the authorities are directed to file the reply on the aforesaid issues.
Put up on 14.8.2012 as fresh.
A certified copy of this order be provided to Sri Virendra Kumar Yadav, learned Standing Counsel free of cost.
Order Date :- 6.8.2012 OP