IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 341 of 2008 (S/S) Smt. Mamta ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 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. As per the said Government Orders reference whereof has already been given above, a selection 2 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 Authority has to take a decision on this matter within 15 days as per the Government Order dated 24.2.2009. 3 “Angan Bari Worker” has to be a woman. The petitioner being a woman moved an application for being appointed as an “Angan Bari Worker” for “Angan Bari Centre – Bankot, Block Chinyali Saud, Tehsil Chinyali Saud, District Uttarkashi. The contention of the petitioner is that the duly constituted Selection Committee found the petitioner suitable for appointment as an “Angan Bari Worker” and thereafter published a select list dated 21.11.2007, in which her name figured. Subsequently thereafter on 10.2.2008 the respondent published another select list, in which name of respondent no. 4 was figured in place of her name as a selected candidate and vide order dated 20.3.2008 respondent no. 4 was given appointment as “Angan Bari Worker” at aforesaid “Angan Bari Centre”. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner. The State has contested the writ petition by stating in the counter affidavit that after publishing the tentative select list, objections were called. Thereafter a complaint/objection was received against the petitioner and on enquiry it was revealed that the petitioner does not belong to Below Poverty Line and hence her candidature was cancelled. The relevant Government Orders pertaining to the year in which the dispute arose have not been brought on record and only Government Order dated 24th February, 2009 has been brought on record, which provides a mechanism for constitution of a forum to look into these matters. Although the Government Orders, reference of which have already been made above, may not be strictly applicable in the present case as they relate to a period after the appointment of respondent no. 4 was made under “Angan Bari Scheme” yet since there is already a 4 forum provided subsequently under the Government Order dated 24th February, 2009, and since this Court finds that by and large though the procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 24th February, 2009 as well as subsequent Government Orders, is an elaborate procedure, yet there seems to be a flaw in the procedure inasmuch as in such cases where objections are made on a tentative select list and the matter is referred to the Appellate Authority, there is no provision that the Appellate Authority before reversing the decision of the Selection Committee shall serve a notice to the selected candidate or to give her an opportunity of hearing. This being the case, the Appellate Authority in the present case rejected the candidature of the petitioner (albeit as a selected only as a candidate in a tentative selection list) without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As such, this Court finds that an interference is needed in the writ petition. The Appellate Authority constituted under the Government Order dated 24th February, 2009 is hereby directed to hear the present petitioner as well as the incumbent “Angan Bari Worker” Smt. Sarita who is respondent no. 4 in the writ petition, and after hearing both the parties pass a speaking order therein. It is made clear that since Smt. Sarita has already been appointed as “Angan Bari Worker”, although this Court finds flaw in the procedure of appointment, no interference is being called for by this Court and the matter is referred to the Appellate Authority. Moreover, the scheme contained in Government Order dated 24.2.2009 is not a statutory scheme but is primarily based on principles of natural justice and fair play. 5 It must be clarified that an appointment of an “Angan Bari Worker” is only under a Government Scheme, yet for those “Angan Bari workers” who are so appointed, it carries a great meaning as the candidates for this work belong to the deprived or rather financially insecure stratum of our society who reside in a village. Even amongst them in most cases they are widows, divorced women, etc. Subject to just exceptions, these women have a legitimate expectation to be appointed as an “Angan Bari Worker” once their names figure in the tentative select list. It is also true that if merely one is selected, one does not get any indefeasible right for appointment, yet it is equally true that if the appointment is denied, plausible reasons must exist for such a denial! The Appellate Authority is hence directed to take a decision on this matter by passing a speaking order as expeditiously as possible but in no case beyond a period of eight weeks from the date a representation along with certified copy of this order is produced before it. It is expected that the Appellate Authority will act with due fairness in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. It is made clear that the continuance of respondent no. 4 as “Angan Bari Worker” will depend upon the final decision reached by the Appellate Authority. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 28.3.2011 Rathour