IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 490 of 2007 (S/S) Smt. Pingala Devi ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal and others. ………Respondents. Present: Mr. H.C. Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. P.C. Jhingan, 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. H.C. Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. P.C. Jhingan, 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. 2 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 the “tentative select list” to be notified at various places including the Block Level Offices, so that if anybody wants to object to these selection, 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 objection 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” has to be a woman. The petitioner being a woman moved an application for being appointed as an “Angan Bari Worker” in Angan Bari 3 Centre-Kuthnaur, Block Naugaon, Tehsil Barcote, District Uttarkashi. 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. After she had worked 16 to 17 years, her services were terminated by an oral order. Aggrieved the petitioner has challenged this order. In the counter affidavit, the State has stated that the reason assigned for terminating the services of the petitioner was that she was married and had gone to another village and therefore, her services were not available for the period for which she was appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri H.C. Joshi contends that her services were terminated by an oral order in the year 2003 though she was married in the year, 1996 and this cannot be a reason for terminating her services. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the petitioner is a handicapped. The relevant Government Orders pertaining to the year in which the dispute arose have not been brought on record and subsequent Government Order dated 24th February, 2009 has been brought on record, which provides a mechanism for constitution of a forum to look into these matters. Although the Government Orders, reference of which have already been made above, may not be strictly applicable in the present case as they relate to a period after the appointment of the petitioner was made under “Angan Bari Scheme” yet since there is already a forum provided subsequently under the Government Order dated 24th February, 2009 this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the appellate authority constituted for the purpose shall look 4 into the grievance of the petitioner. Learned State Counsel asserts that since a long time has passed from the date of filing of the writ petition, there might be another incumbent working as “Angan Bari Worker” in the said “Angan Bari Centre”. It is, therefore, directed that the Appellate Authority shall also hear the present incumbent along with the petitioner. Moreover, the scheme contained in Government Order dated 24.2.2009 is not a statutory scheme but is primarily based on principles of natural justice and fair play. It must be clarified that 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 exceptions, 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 eighty weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it. It is expected that the Appellate Authority will act with due fairness in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair play, and hear all concerned parties. 5 With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 25.3.2011 Avneet