Uttarakhand High Court
Kusumlata vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
Special Appeal No.53 Of 2022
04th April, 2022
Between:
Kusumlata ...... Appellant.
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others. ...... Respondents.
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Dy. Advocate
General.
Counsel for respondent no.5. : Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
ORDER: (per the Acting Chief Justice Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra)
In this Special Appeal the writ-petitioner has
assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge on
02.03.2022 allowing the writ-petition filed by respondent no.5
and thereby setting aside the appointment of the appellant
herein directing the Appellate Committee to reconsider the
matter afresh.
2. An advertisement was issued on 22.01.2014 for
selection of Mini Aaganwadi Karyakarti in Augustmuni, District
Rudraprayag (hereinafter to be called as "the centre").
3. The present appellant applied and she got
selected. However, respondent no.5 herein raised objections
against her appointment allegedly after the last date of filing
the objections. In any case, after hearing the matter the
committee decided that the present appellant does not reside
in the command area of the Mini Aaganwadi Centre and that
being one of the reasons that her selection was cancelled and
respondent no.5 was given appointment.
4. The present appellant challenged the aforesaid
order by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No.1571 of 2015 which was
disposed of on 30.03.2017. It is appropriate to take note of
the entire order which is a cryptic one
"Mr. M. S. Bhandari, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Pandey, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Prashant Khanna, Advocate for the
respondent no.5.
Petitioner participated in the selection
process for the post of Mini Aanganbadi Karyakarti.
The name of the petitioner finds mentioned at
serial no.32.
Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioner
was approved. The name of the petitioner was put
in final selection list vide letter dated 12.02.2015.
However, the fact of the matter is that on the
basis of alleged complaint received on 12.11.2014,
the services of the petitioner have been terminated
on the basis of the inquiry conducted by Tehsildar
on 25.03.2015.
Petitioner has not been associated during the
course of inquiry, as she has not been issued any
notice by the Tehsildar before submitting the
inquiry report.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The
annexure no.6 dated 25.03.2015 qua the petitioner
as well as the order dated 18.06.2015, whereby
respondent no.5 has been appointment in place of
the petitioner, are quashed and set aside.
Respondents are at liberty to proceed with
the matter in accordance with law."
5. Thereafter, the Appellate Committee decided the
matter without giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent
no.5 and appointed the appellant as Aaganwadi Karyakarti.
That order was challenged by respondent no.5 by filing Writ
Petition (S/S) No.2829 of 2017 which is the subject matter of
this Intra-Court Appeal.
6. It is apparent from the record that the learned
Single Judge has good view of the fact and has summarized
2
his findings at paragraph no.7 of the judgment impugned
which we find appropriate to quote:-
"7. Even if it is so, that the said report could
have had any bearing in deciding the matter
afresh, this Court is of the view that when the
entire exercise was being undertaken on the basis
of the judgment rendered on 30.03.2017, in a writ
petition preferred by the respondent no.5, it was
more incumbent that when two candidates who are
in contest for being appointed as against the same
centre i.e. the petitioner and respondent no.5
herein, the Appellate Committee or the Project
Officer Augustmuni, Rudraprayag was at least
required to adhere to the principles of natural
justice and it ought to have taken a decision for
making any appointment, only after providing an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."
7. Thus, it is clear that after the matter was decided
earlier by the learned Single Judge and the matter was
remitted back to the authorities for re-decision. An
opportunity of hearing should also have been granted to
respondent no.5 who was the petitioner before the learned
Single Judge.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
since earlier order was passed in his favour so there is no
need to follow principle of natural justice. We do not agree
with such argument, as no specific findings has been given in
the earlier order as passed by the learned Single Judge as to
who, in between respondent no.5 or the present appellant, is
eligible to be appointed or engaged as Aaganwadi Karyakarti.
Hence, the Appellate Committee should have heard both the
parties while taking the decision which in the matter
impugned before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the
3
learned Single Judge has rightly decided that the matter
should be reconsidered by the Appellate Committee and also
both the parties should be given reasonable opportunity of
hearing and producing documents on record and decide the
matter.
9. With these observations, the present Special Appeal is
disposed of.
_________________________
SANJAYA KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J.
__ _______________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 04th April, 2022
BS/SS
