IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 877 (SS) of 2011 Smt. Meena Rawat …Petitioner Versus Secretary Panchayati Rajya Government of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate with Mr. Nirdesh Kumar Khandelwal, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel present for respondent no. 4. And Writ Petition No. 1037 (SS) of 2011 Suniti Devi …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel present for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate with Mr. Nirdesh Kumar Khandelwal, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. Both these writ petitions are being decided together with the consent of the parties. 3. Initially the petitioner in writ petition no. 1037 (SS) of 2011 was appointed as “Anganbari Karyakatri” for “Anganbari” Centre Baniyawala-4, Sahaspur, district Dehradun. This appointment was challenged by the petitioner of writ petition no. 877 (SS) of 2011, namely, Smt. Meena Rawat. The petitioner, namely, Suniti Devi earlier filed a writ petition being writ petition no. 1259 (SS) of 2010, which was disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to hear the grievance of the parties and to decide the representation with a speaking order and after hearing the parties the petitioner i.e. Suniti Devi was reinstated in service. 2 4. However, respondent no. 4 (in writ petition no. 1037 (SS) of 2011) filed a writ petition being writ petition no. 877 (SS) of 2011 and Smt. Meena Rawat was given the appointment in place of Suniti Devi by an interim order dated 18.7.2011, which reads as under:- “Mr. Nirdesh Kumar Khandelwal, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Admit. Notices on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 3 have been accepted by Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Issue notice to respondent no. 4 to be returnable within three weeks. Steps to be taken within one week. Counter affidavit to be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit to be filed within two weeks thereafter. List this matter after six weeks. The petitioner was appointed as an Angan Bari Worker on 3rd November, 2010 for Angan Bari Centre Baniawala-4, Sahaspur, District Dehradun. Consequently on a complaint, the Appellate Authority which has been constituted vide Government Order dated 24th February 2009 without affording any opportunity of hearing or show cause to the petitioner merely on the complaint of respondent no. 4 has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 24th June, 2011. Apparently the impugned order dated 24th June, 2011 appears to be in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. As such, as an interim measure it is directed that until further orders of this Corut, the effect and operation of impugned order dated 24th June, 2011 shall remain stayed. Interim Relief Application No. 7236 of 2011 stands disposed of.” 5. Appointment of “Angan Bari Workers” are presently done primarily in accordance with Government Order dated 24th February, 2009, in which an Appellate Authority is already provided, which consists of the following: “1. Chief Development Officer-Chairman. 2. A person nominated by the District Magistrate, who must be at least Class-II Officer, and, 3 3. District Programme Officer, who will be the member Secretary of this appellate body. 6. Apparently it seems that the petitioner in writ petition no. 877 (SS) of 2011, namely, Smt. Meena Rawat and the petitioner in writ petition no. 1037 (SS) of 2011, namely, Suniti Devi, have their respective claims over the post of “Anganbari Karyakatri” for “Anganbari” Centre Baniyawala-4, Sahaspur, district Dehradun. 7. As such, it would be served ends of justice if the writ petitions be disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to consider the grievance of both the parties and pass a speaking order. The appellate authority shall judge the eligibility and suitability of both the parties on the post of “Anganbari Worker” and the better candidate be given the appointment. The Chief Development Officer, Dehradun is directed to refer the matter to the appellate authority to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible but definitely within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. 8. It is made clear that since the petitioner in writ petition no. 877 (SS) of 2011, namely Smt. Meena Rawat is presently working as such, she shall continue to do the work till a decision is come from the appellate authority. 9. With the above directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of finally. 10. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 14.10.2011 VKG