IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 628 OF 2011 (S/S) Smt. Vimla Devi ……………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Tumul K. Nailwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Tumul K. Nailwal, 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 committee at Block Level is first constituted. A procedure is prescribed for constituting this Selection Committee. Thereafter procedure is also prescribed how the various 2 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 a “tentative select list”, to be notified at various places including the Block Level Offices, so that if anybody wants to raise objections on these selections, 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 objections 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. “Angan Bari Worker” necessarily 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 Chhatikhet, Village 3 Chhatikhet, District Bageshwar. Subsequently, the petitioner was appointed as an “Angan Bari Worker” for Angan Bari Centre Chhatikhet, Village Chhatikhet, District Bageshwar. By the impugned order dated 5.5.2011 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition), the services of the petitioner have been terminated by the Child Development Project Officer, Bageshwar / respondent no.2. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner. Evidently, no opportunity of hearing or show cause was given to the petitioner prior to termination of her services. As such, order dated 5.5.2011 is violative of principles of natural justice and fair-play and is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The Child Development Project Officer, Bageshwar, however, is at liberty to take a decision on this matter by passing a speaking order, after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. It is made clear that the petitioner shall continue to work as an “Angan Bari Worker” as before till such time the respondent takes action against her but only after giving her a reasonable opportunity of hearing. Respondent no. 2 must also hear the present respondent no. 3 Ms. Neema Kalakoti, as she had made a complaint against the petitioner. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 22.6.2011 Rathour