IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.: 1667 of 2007 Date of decision: 29.7.2009. Kurmila Devi … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 to 4: Mr. Ram Murti Bisht, Deputy Advocate General. For the applicant-: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has challenged the order dated 3.9.2007 whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that the income of her family was more than Rs.12,000/- per annum. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for appointment as Anganwari Worker, Anganwari Centre Ward No-7, Nurpur. The petitioner produced all the certificates including a certificate issued by the Tehsildar that the income of the family of the petitioner is less than Rs.12,000/- per annum. It appears that some complaint was filed by one Smt. Bharti Sharma wife of Shri Rakesh Sharma, who is applicant in CMP No.4719 of 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 2009. On this complaint, the impugned order was passed, which reads as follows:- No.WEI/CDP/N/2-7/2007-4001 Office of Child Development Project Officer Nurpur, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh To Smt. Kurmila w/o Om Parkash, Village Nurpur, Ward No.7, P.O. Nurpur, Tehsil Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. Dated 3.9.2007 Sub.: Cancellation of appointment. Memo: On the subject cited above, you are informed that Tehsildar Nurpur vide letter No.103/MC dtd. 17.9.2007 has informed this office that your annual income is Rs.18,000/- whereas according to the guidelines of the Department, for being eligible for appointment to the post of Anganwari Worker annual income should be Rs.12,000/-. Keeping in view the above fact, your appointment is cancelled. These orders shall come into effect immediately. Sd/- Child Development Project Officer, Nurpur, Distt. Kangra, H.P. It is apparent that this order has been passed without giving any hearing to the petitioner. At the back of the petitioner some inquiry has been held and the annual income has been assessed at Rs.18,000/- per annum. It would be pertinent to mention that under the scheme/guidelines for engagement of Anganwari worker, there is no power with the CDPO to recall the order. An appeal against a selection lies to the Deputy Commissioner. In fact, from the record it appears that an appeal was filed against the selection of the present petitioner. The impugned order has not been passed in the appeal but only on the ground of fresh certificate of income having been issued at the back of the petitioner. We are constrained to observe that the CDPO has passed this order in a routine manner without even issuing notice to the petitioner. 3 One of the very basic premises of our jurisprudence is that no man should be condemned unheard. A right of hearing is one of the intrinsic principles which runs through our jurisprudence. It is one of the basic tenets of our judicial system. We expect that officers of the level of Deputy Commissioner and Divisional Commissioner who regularly discharge judicial and quasi judicial functions must be aware of this basic principle of law. The principle of audi alteram partem, i.e. a person affected by a decision has a right to be heard is by now, too well an established legal principle to brook any challenge. The person against whom an action is taken must have a fair chance of presenting his side of the case before the concerned authority and persuading it that the grounds on which action is proposed to be taken against him are either non existence or do not justify the action. This principle of natural justice has by now been extended even to quasi judicial and administrative decision in a large number of cases. It is the first principle of civilized jurisprudence that a person against whom any action is sought to be taken or whose rights or interests are being affected should be given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. This principle has been totally ignored in the present case. In view of the above discussion, we have no option but to set-aside the impugned order dated 3.9.2007. The petitioner shall, therefore, be permitted to continue to function as Anganwari worker. We may make it clear that in case the appeal already filed has been disposed of then on the ground that the services of the petitioner had been terminated then the same can be revived. 4 Liberty is reserved to the CDPO to initiate action afresh and to decide the matter after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Any party aggrieved by the order passed by the CDPO can file an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner. We may make it clear that in case the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner is still pending and has not been disposed of then the CDPO will not take any action and it will be the Deputy Commissioner only who shall decide the appeal in accordance with law after giving all the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge. 29th July, 2009 (Surinder Singh) ™ Judge.