IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 904 of 2006 (S/S) Smt. Kulwant Kaur alias Manjeet Kaur W/o Manohar Singh R/o Village Jagatpur Patti P.O. Shivrajpur Tehsil Jaspur District Udham Singh Nagar. ….…Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttaranchal, through Secretary Bal Vikas Vibhag Govt. of Uttaranchal, Dehradun. 2. Zila Karya-kram Adhikari Bal Vikas Udham Singh Nagar. 3. Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ……….Respondents. Shri A.K. Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the advertisement dated 24.05.2006, inviting applications for the post of Anganbadi Karyakarti, so far it relates to Gramin Anaganbadi Kendra, Village Jagatpur Patti, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. A mandamus has also been sought commanding the respondents to let the petitioner continue on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarti in said Kendra. 2 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit and counter affidavit on record. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition are that earlier on 01.11.2005, an advertisement was made to fill the vacant post of Anganbadi Karyakarti, for Gramin Anganbadi Kendra in Village Jagatpur Patti, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner was one of the applicants in pursuance to said advertisement. She was selected and appointed on the post of Anganbadi Karyakarti in aforesaid Kendra and joined her duties on 17.01.2006. However, vide impugned advertisement dated 24.05.2006, again same post is being advertised without any knowledge to the petitioner that her appointment has been cancelled. 4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, stating that the petitioner has secured the job by showing false income certificate of her husband. It is further stated that a candidate is eligible for the post in question only if she comes under the category of below poverty line for which the monthly income of the candidate must be Rs. 2000/- or less. It is further stated that under orders of Chief Development Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, an enquiry was initiated by Sub-Divisional 3 Magistrate, Jaspur, and it was found that the income of the husband of the petitioner was Rs. 2,200/- per month, consequently her appointment was cancelled. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to the enquiry report dated 12.04.2006 (copy annexure-3 to the counter affidavit), filed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jaspur, in which it is alleged that one Km. Shabana Zahan, one Smt. Sarlesh and Smt. Kulwant Kaur (present petitioner) and some other appointees of different Anganbadi Kendra, have obtained certificate of income, which is not found correct. As to the above three appointees, including the petitioner, their income was said to be found at Rs. 2200/- per month. On perusal of said report, it is not clear that how this figure of Rs. 2200/- per month was calculated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The report simply says Tehsildar, Jaspur has submitted report, which means, the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, has made no enquiry. There is no report of Tehsildar, filed with the counter affidavit, showing that he himself made any inquiry in the matter to arrive at the annual income of Rs. 2200/- per month. Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3, shows that it was the Revenue Inspectors, who have submitted their report on 05.04.2006, which was simply 4 endorsed by Tehsildar, Jaspur to the Sub- Divisional Magistrate. Even the Revenue Inspectors, who have submitted their reports (Annexure-4) simply mentions following sentence in respect of the petitioner in their report:- “Jhefr dqyoUr dkSj mQZ eathr dkSj iRuh Jh euksgj flag txriqj iV~Vh dh fuoklh gS rFkk buds ifr euksgj flag iq= lksgu flag dks rglhy ls fn0 09&12&2005 dks 1600@& :Ik;s ekfld vk; dk izek.ki= tkjh gqvk FkkA iwoZ esa izsf"kr iqu% tkap esa budh ekfld vk; 2200@& :Ik;s izfrekg vkadh x;h FkhAß” As such even the report of the Revenue Inspectors does not show how they have arrived to the figure of Rs. 2200/- per month. The report goes to show that similar figure has been mentioned in respect of several other appointees of different villages without disclosing any reason as to how this figure was arrived at. The averment made by the Child Development Project Officer, in the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No. 2 and 3 that the petitioner submitted forged income certificate, itself appears to be false. There is nothing on the reports that certificate, issued by the Revenue authorities to the petitioner was found to be forged. What is reported by the Revenue Inspectors is that on fresh enquiry, they found that income of the petitioner is not Rs. 1600/- per month but Rs. 2200/- per month. 5 6. In the above circumstances, the report relied by the respondents in respect of the petitioner appears to be arbitrary and whimsical, without disclosing any basis. 7. For the reasons, as discussed above, this Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned advertisement so far it relates to the Village Anganbadi Kendra, Jagatpur Patti, Tehsil Jaspur, is liable to be quashed, as without cancellation of appointment of the petitioner, no fresh advertisement could have been issued. Though it is alleged in the counter affidavit that the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled but no order of cancellation of appointment was filed with the counter affidavit. Rather what has been filed as annexure-6 to the counter affidavit is the order of District Magistrate, whereby he has simply mentioned that as per the telephonic talks with the Secretary, Child Development, entire selection process is cancelled. I agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in pursuance to the earlier advertisement dated 01.11.2005, after selection process had taken place and appointment letters had been issued and the candidates have joined their duties, no fresh recruitment process could be started in respect of the post, which is already filled, in the manner it is being done. 6 8. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned advertisement dated 24.05.2006, for filling the vacant post of Anganbadi Karyakarti in Anganbadi Kendra Jagatpur Patti, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, is hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be allowed to function as Anganbadi Karyakarti in terms of order dated 10.01.2006, issued by Child Development Project Officer, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:01.12.2009 Sweta 7 8 9 10 11 12