IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 398 of 2008 (S/S) Smt. Anita Devi ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 and 2. Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Kaushal Kishore, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand as well as Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate present for respondent no. 3. Under a Scheme started in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh, somewhere in late 80s, which continued in the State of Uttarakhand, “Angan Bari Workers” are appointed in “Angan Bari Centres”, which are situated almost in all villages. It is a village level appointment made by the concerned Child Development Project Officer. The selection and appointment procedure of “Angan Bari Karyakatri”, “Sahayika Angan Bari Karyakatri” and “Mini Angan Bari Karyakatri” are presently governed by various Government Orders but primarily by Government Orders dated 24th February, 2009, 3rd September, 2009 and 31st May, 2010. The main scheme today, is given in a Government Order issued by the Government of Uttarakhand on 24th February, 2009. These are all admitted facts. 2 As per the said Government Orders reference whereof has already been given above, a selection committee at Block Level is first constituted. A procedure is prescribed for constituting this Selection Committee. Thereafter procedure is also prescribed how the various vacancies of “Angan Bari Workers” will be advertised for all the “Angan Bari Centres” and how the selection will be made by the Selection Committee and what will be the eligibility as well as the priorities given to a candidate in this selection. It will be needless to elaborate on this aspect at the present juncture. As per the procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 24th February, 2009, the Selection Committee shall publish the “tentative select list” to be notified at various places including the Block Level Offices, so that if anybody wants to object to these selection, he or she would be free to make such objections. The cases where no objections are made, the tentative selection list becomes final and the Child Development Project Officer issues appointment letter to such a candidate. In cases where objections are received the matter is referred to the Appellate Authority, which is constituted under the Government Order dated 24th February, 2009. The body of the Appellate Authority constituted is as follows: “1. Chief Development Officer- Chairman 2. A person nominated by the District Magistrate, who must be at least Class-II Officer, and, 3. District Programme Officer, who will be the member Secretary of this appellate body. The Appellate Authority after considering the objection passes appropriate order therein. The Appellate 3 Authority has to take a decision on this matter within 15 days as per the Government Order dated 24.2.2009. The petitioner was selected as a “Mini Angan Bari Worker” for “Angan Bari Centre” Metatalla, District Chamoli and thereafter she was appointed as such. All the same, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, her appointment was cancelled vide order dated 3.5.2008 by the District Program Officer, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli. Subsequently, the petitioner has been informed by the District Program Officer, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli that the District Magistrate has stayed all the selection of “Angan Bari Workers” and thereafter the order further states that since the husband of the petitioner is employed in Uttarakhand Power Corporation, the petitioner does not come under the Below Poverty Line (BPL) Category and, therefore, her appointment has been cancelled. There are two grounds for interference in the impugned order. Firstly, the Standing Counsel has failed to show before this Court that under which provision the District Magistrate derives power to stay the selection of an “Angan Bari Worker”. Secondly, it is an admitted case that before cancelling the appointment of the petitioner no opportunity of hearing or show cause was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has categorically stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that subsequent to her selection, she joined on 5.12.2007 as “Angan Bari Worker” at the aforesaid “Angan Bari Centre”. This fact has not been controverted by the State Authorities. As such, the cancellation of selection or appointment of the petitioner is totally in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play inasmuch as before cancelling the appointment an opportunity of hearing was liable to be 4 given to her. On these grounds, the writ petition is liable to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the District Program Officer, Gopeshwar, District Chamoli (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) is hereby set aside. It is directed that the District Program Officer shall reinstate the petitioner as “Mini Angan Bari Centre” for the aforesaid centre. Since respondent no. 3 had made objection to the appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner had made her party as well. The Appellate Authority i.e.. the District Programme Officer may if he deems it proper initiate removal of the petitioner in case there is any anomaly in her appointment but only after giving her an opportunity of hearing. The objections of respondent no. 3 shall also be heard. It is, however, made clear that before the reappraisal of the case of the petitioner by the concerned authority, the petitioner would first be reinstated. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 29.4.2011 Avneet