Sunita Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 5068 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

RESERVED
 
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.48002 OF 2011 
 
Sunita Singh. 						....Petitioner
 
Versus
 
State of U.P. Through Secretary,  Ministry 
 
of Child Development Service and Nutrition, 
 
U.P., Lucknow and others. 		                   ....Respondents
 

 
**********
 
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Aaganbari Worker in village Bohana, district Azamgarh. In the merit list, the petitioner has obtained highest marks and was selected. The selection was approved by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh vide order dated 19.06.2011 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner has been appointed as Aaganbari Worker vide appointment letter dated 21.06.2011. One Smt. Reena Devi, respondent no.5 field a complaint before the District Magistrate, Azamgarh. In the complaint the respondent no.5 has stated that she applied for the post of Aaganbari Worker, she is a widow falls under BPL category and therefore would be entitled for the appointment on the post of Aaganbari Worker and instead of appointing her as Aaganbari Worker, she has been appointed as Aaganbari Sahayika and petitioner, Smt. Sunita Singh has been appointed as Aaganbari Worker. On the said complaint, District Programme Officer has made an inquiry. The District Programme Officer wrote a letter dated 09.08.2011, in which he has stated that the respondent no.5 has passed High School is a widow of BPL category eligible for appointment on the post of Aaganbari Worker and, her application for the post of Aaganbari Sahayika appears to be doubtful. He directed that the appointment of the petitioner, Smt. Sunita Singh may be cancelled and the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi may be appointed as Aaganbari Worker. In pursuance of the said letter, Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and appointed the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi as Aaganbari Worker. The petitioner challenged the said order in the present writ petition.

The writ petition came up before this Court on 23.08.2011. On that date learned Standing Counsel was directed to produce the record relating to the appointment of the petitioner and respondent no.5 and the matter was directed to be listed on 29.08.2011.

On 29.08.2011 learned Standing Counsel produced the record. On perusal of the record and the application of the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi, which was available on record, this Court found that the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi has applied for the post of Aaganbari Sahayika and not for the post of Aaganbari Worker and accordingly, she has been appointed as Aaganbari Sahayika. The Court also observed that the cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner and the appointment of the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi on the post of Aaganbari Worker was patently illegal and contrary to law. It has also been observed that it appears that the District Programme Officer has intended to favour the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi and his observation that since the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi has passed the High School, her application for the post of Aaganbari Sahayika appears to be doubtful, is baseless and without any material. In view of the above, the District Programme Officer was directed to show cause that when the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi has applied for the post of Aaganbari Sahayika how she has been appointed on the post of Aaganbari Worker; what right she has got to claim for the appointment of the post of Aaganbari Worker and how on the basis of the wrong facts the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. Until further orders, the operation of the order dated 12.08.2011 passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Jahanaganj, Azamgarh, has been stayed.

Counter affidavit has been filed by District Programme Officer and also by the Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari.

On the consideration of both the counter affidavits, the Court has passed the following order on 08.11.2011:

"In pursuance of the direction of this Court, dated 29.08.2011 counter affidavit has been filed by the District Programme Officer, Azamgarh. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, it is stated "that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh conducted separate inquiries and found that the respondent no.5 has applied for the post of Aaganbari Karyakatri but her application was removed by the respondent no.4 in connivance with the petitioner. The copies of the inquiry reports submitted by the deponent as well as Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Azamgarh to the District Magistrate, Azamgarh along with its annexures are being filed as annexures CA-5 and CA-6 to the counter affidavit." In para 11 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that "the petitioner got appointment in collusion with the respondent no.4. Therefore, the application of the petitioner was cancelled."

The respondent no.4, Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Jahanaganj, Azamgarh has filed the counter affidavit. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, the following has been stated :

"That the contents of paragraph no.14 of the writ petition are matter of record. However, it is submitted that according to the record of selection proceeding, the respondent no.5 has applied for the post of Anganwadi Sahayika and regarding the same original records was produce before this Hon'ble Court on 29.8.2011 and this Hon'ble Court has also recorded a finding on the basis of original record that the respondent no.5 has applied for the post of Anganwadi Sahayika. It is pertinent to mention here that on 12.08.2011, the respondent no.3 has directed the deponent to accept the Application Form of the respondent no.5 for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti. A photo copy of Application Form dated 12.08.2011 submitted by the respondent no.5 is being annexed herewith and marked as Annexure No.C.A.-4 to this counter affidavit. It is further submitted that aforesaid application form was submitted by the respondent no.5 after issuance of the appointment letter in favour of the petitioner and the respondent no.3 directed the deponent to submit the entire record of selection of Anganwadi Karyakatri in her office and since then the entire records is in the possession of the respondent no.3."

From the perusal of the averments made in the counter affidavit filed by the District Programme Officer and the respondent no.4 it appears that both the officers have made the allegations against each other. Prima facie it appears that there is manipulation and personal interest of some of the officers is involved. In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that let a detailed inquiry be made in the matter by the senior officer.

Learned Standing Counsel suggested that let the inquiry be directed to be made by the Director, Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar, Lucknow.

In view of the above, the Director, Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar, Lucknow is directed to make a detailed inquiry in the matter within a period of four weeks and submit the report before this Court within another one week thereafter from the date of furnishing of certified copy of this order which learned Standing Counsel may supply within one week.

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the copies of the counter affidavits filed by the respondent nos.3 and 4 and the copies of the orders passed by this Court along with the copy of the writ petition before the Director, Bal Vikas Evam Pushtahar, Lucknow.

List for further hearing on 19.12.2011."

Thereafter, the matter came up for consideration on 24.07.2011. On that date, this Court has passed the following order:

"Since on the issue, contradictory averments have been made in the affidavits filed by the different authorities, the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P., Government, Lucknow was directed to make an inquiry and submit the report. In pursuance thereof, the inquiry report of Sri Shambhu Nath, the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P., Governemnt, Lucknow dated 18.5.2012 is being filed along with the compliance affidavit dated 21.5.2012 filed by Sri G.D. Yadav. In the inquiry report, he has referred various statements taken in the inquiry but he has shown is unableness to come to a final conclusion. It is unfortunate. It is not expected from such a Senior Officer to avoid giving his own final conclusion on the basis of the inquiry made by him. The reason is best known to him. The case has been heard today. The main dispute is whether Reena Devi, the complainant, has applied for the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika or for the post of Aaganwai Karyakatri.

Learned Standing Counsel produced the record. The application dated 31.1.2012 moved by Reena Devi has been produced before the Court. In the application, there is signature of Reena Devi. In this application, she has applied for the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika. It is the case of the Child Development Officer that Reena Devi applied for the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika and not Aaganwadi Karyakatri and on the basis of her application she has been appointed as Aaganwadi Sahahika and she has not been considered for the post of Aaganwadi Karyakatri. The allegation of Reena Devi is that the said application has been inserted by the forged signature and the said application has not been filed by her. It is the case of Reena Devi that she has applied for the post of Aaganwadi Karyakatri and her original application has been removed.

In view of the above, I am of the view that it is necessary to ascertain whether the signature of Reena Devi, on the application, which is the part of the record and produced by Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel during the course of argument is genuine or not. It is claimed that Reena Devi has filed a fresh application on 12.8.2011 for the post of Aaganwadi Karyakatri. In the said application also there is signature of Reena Devi on 11.8.2011. Since various administrative authorities are involved in this matter and their statements are contradictory, the Court is of the view that let the signature of Reena Devi be verified through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh. Smt. Chinta Devi, the Child Development Officer, is directed to produce both the applications within a period of one week. Reena Devi is also directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh within a period of one week. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh is directed to get the signature verified through Hand Writing Expert within a period of three weeks. The expenses of the Hand Writing Expert shall be borne by the State Government. On furnishing of the bill by the Hand Writing Expert, the District Magistrate, Azamgarh is directed to pay the expenses to him.

List on 22.8.2012 showing the name of Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent."

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh has submitted the report of Deputy Director Legal Science Laboratory, U.P., Ram Nagar, Varanasi dated 14.09.2012. The signatures have been taken on the plain paper, which have been forwarded to the Deputy Director, Legal Science Laboratory, U.P., Ram Nagar, Varanasi along with application form alleged to have been filed by Smt. Reena Devi for the post of Aaganbari Sahayika, the subsequent application form dated 11.08.2011, by which she has applied for the post of Aaganbari Worker along with various other documents, which have been certified by Smt. Reena Devi. Deputy Director in its report certified that the signature of Smt. Reena Devi, which is marked as Q-1 and Q-2 on the application relating to Aaganbari Sahayika are forged and does not tally with the sample signature marked as S-1, S-2 and S-3 while the signature of Smt. Reena Devi on the application for Aaganbari Worker marked as Q-3 and Q-4 have tallied. A detailed reason for the same has been given. From the report of the Deputy Director, Legal Science Laboratory, U.P., Ram Nagar, Varanasi, the hand writing expert, it is established that the application on the basis of which it is alleged that Smt. Reena Devi has applied for the post of Aaganbari Sahayika had not been signed by Smt. Reena Devi and is a forged application. It appears that by manipulation and collusion of the interested persons with the officer concerned, under whose custody the records were kept, the original application of Smt. Reena Devi has been removed by which she had applied for the post of Aaganbari Worker and application with forged signature of Smt. Reena Devi for the post of Aaganbari Sahayika has been placed.

The report of the Deputy Director, Legal Science Laboratory, U.P., Ram Nagar, Varanasi has been shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the report is directory and is not conclusive proof unless the Expert is put for cross-examination. However, no request has been made for the cross-examination. No defect has been pointed out in the report of Deputy Director, Legal Science Laboratory, U.P., Ram Nagar, Varanasi.

It is not in dispute that in case if Smt. Reena Devi would have been considered for the post of Aaganbari worker along with the application of the petitioner and other applicant, she would stand on the top of merit list and would have been appointed under the Government Order, being qualified and had a preferential right being widow of BPL category.

In view of the above, I hold that the appointment of the petitioner, Smt. Sunita Devi was not justified. The appointment of the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi by the impugned order on the post of Aaganbari Worker was wholly justified.

Further, on the facts and circumstances of the case, I issue following directions:

1, The Commissioner, Azamgarh Region, Azamagarh is directed to make the inquiry and punish the guilty persons;

2. Necessary action be taken against the persons, who are responsible for removing the original application of the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi and substituting the forged application by manipulation, which appears to be as a result of collusion between the beneficiary/interested persons and the officer concerned in whose custody the records were available;

3.Action may also be taken against those persons who have filed wrong affidavits in this Court and concealed the correct facts.

4. The Director is supposed to be responsible officer, who can not avoid his responsibility. When the Court has asked to make the inquiry and to give his opinion then on the basis of the fair inquiry, he should have given his fair opinion but instead of giving opinion he avoided for the reasons best known to him, such act is not appreciable. Necessary explanation be asked from him in this regard from the concerned Director and be recorded in his character roll.

In the result, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi within a period of one month.

The original letter of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh and the report of Deputy Director, Legal Science Laboratory, U.P., Ram Nagar, Varanasi in original and original copies of the application along with its annexures be returned to the learned Standing Counsel to be placed on the original record relating to the appointment and photocopies of all the documents stated above after being certified by Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel be kept on record of writ petition.

Dated : 12.10.2012.

R./