IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No. 18696 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION : JULY 15, 2009 MANPREET SHARMA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Raman Mohinder, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for respondent No.4. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) Manpreet Sharma daughter of Late Amarjit Chand has filed this Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure P-4). Vide the impugned order, the order of appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Worker in Village Alisher, Civil Writ Petition No. 18696 of 2007 2 Block Lehragaga, has been cancelled and, in her place, Prem Lata (respondent No.4) has been transferred from Village Bangan, Block Andana. The sequence of facts, in brief, is that respondent No.4 was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Village Alisher. In the year 2002, respondent No.4, of her own accord, got herself transferred from Village Alisher to Village Bangan, because her parents' house is at Patran, which is 10 kilometers from Village Bangan. Village Alisher is located at a distance of 38 kilometers from Patran. After transfer of respondent No.4, the post of Anganwari Worker in Village Alisher fell vacant. One Kiranjit Kaur was appointed as Anganwari Worker in Village Alisher. Kiranjit Kaur continued to work. In the year 2007, second post of Anganwari Worker was created in Village Alisher. Applications were invited for filling up the newly created post through Gram Panchayat, Village Alisher. The petitioner, being resident of Village Alisher, applied for the post along with all requisite documents. Gram Panchayat, Village Alisher, passed a resolution on 20.8.2007 (Annexure P-1) and sent all the applications of the candidates to respondent No.3 i.e. Child Development and Project Officer, Lehragaga, Tehsil Moonak, District Sangrur. The petitioner, being the highest in merit, was appointed as Anganwari Worker by respondent No.3 vide order dated 14.9.2007 (Annexure P-2). On 26.11.2007, the impugned order (Annexure P-4) has been passed, whereunder the order of appointment of the petitioner has been Civil Writ Petition No. 18696 of 2007 3 cancelled and respondent No.4 has been transferred back, on her request, to Village Alisher from Village Bangan. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that certain rights are vested in the petitioner, after having been appointed, after selection. It was on account of sweet will of respondent No.4 that she was transferred to Village Bangan. On account of the request of respondent No.4 to transfer her back to Village Alisher, the petitioner cannot be displaced. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner was not given any hearing or show-cause notice and, therefore, the impugned order (Annexure P-4), which affects the rights of the petitioner, is against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to dispute the fact that the petitioner was not heard. All that has been argued is that the application of respondent No.4 was received in the office of respondent No.3 on 31.8.2007 i.e. before the letter of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner on 14.9.2007. It was for the office to have considered the request of respondent No.4 prior in time, in terms of the instructions. Be that as it may, I am of the opinion that the petitioner should have been given hearing before any order adversely affecting her rights was passed. Because principles of natural justice have not been complied with before passing of the impugned order, this petition is allowed. Order dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure P-4) is set aside. In case, respondents No.1 to 3 propose to take any action Civil Writ Petition No. 18696 of 2007 4 against the petitioner, the petitioner be given a show-cause notice and personal hearing before taking any such action. July 15, 2009 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?