IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 116 of 2011 (S/S) Smt. Meenakshi Joshi ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Mohinder Singh Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 4. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Mohinder Singh Bisht, 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 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. 3 “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, Olna, Village Olna, Gram Panchayat-Mauradi, District Champawat. 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 tentative select list, in which her name figured. However, since there was a complaint against the petitioner, the matter was referred to the Appellate Authority, which came to the conclusion that the petitioner does not deserve to be selected and therefore her selection was cancelled and was replaced by respondent no. 5 who had in fact made the complaint. As per the contention of the petitioner, after the order passed by the Appellate Authority (copy of which was never served upon the petitioner) appointment was given to respondent no. 5. It is not disputed that respondent no. 5 is presently working as “Angan Bari Karyakatri”. Earlier notices were not issued to respondent no. 5 and at the first instance a reply was only called from the State Authorities only, which are respondent nos. 1 to 4 in the present writ petition. This was done keeping in mind that an issuance of notice may entail some kind of inconvenience and even some expenses to a poor “Angan Bari Worker”. The Court though was conscious that in case of any adverse order passed by this Court notices were liable to be sent to her in that case. In its reply, the State Authorities have referred to the Government Order dated 24th February, 2009 and have stated that selection has been made in accordance with the procedure laid 4 down in the Government Order. 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 would also 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 present incumbent i.e. “Angan Bari Karyakatri” Smt. Janki Devi who is respondent no. 5 in the writ petition, and after hearing them pass a speaking order therein. It is made clear that since Smt. Janki Devi has already been appointed as “Angan Bari Karyakatri”, although this Court finds flaw in the procedure of appointment and no notice has been issued to her for reasons already referred above, no interference is being called for by this Court and the matter is referred to the Appellate Authority and it is expected that the Appellate Authority will act with due fairness and in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play. 5 It must be clarified that though 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 objections, 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 certified copy of this order is produced before it. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.3.2011 Rathour