RESERVED ON 09.01.2018 DELIVERED ON 27.07.2018 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9920 of 2016 Petitioner :- Ram Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Jeevan Tripathi,Surendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. The aforesaid writ petition has been filed by two petitioners challenging the order dated 31.01.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai belonging to joining of the petitioners on the post of Anganwadi workers with the prayer to permit the petitioners to joint as Anganwadi workers in pursuance of their selection and for a direction to the respondents to release their honorarium as and when it falls due.
3. It is the case of petitioners that the selection process for appointment on the post of Anganwadi workers, mini Anganwadi workers and Anganwadi Sahayak started in September, 2010 but was cancelled by an order of the District Magistrate on 11.02.2011 by District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai. A new advertisement was issued on 14.02.2011 for filling up the vacancies of Anganwadi workers in various Centres of the District o Blockwise determination of the reservation. In pursuance of the said advertisement dated 14.02.2011 the petitioner No. 1, Ram Kumari, was selected for village Jai Shri Kalan and the petitioner No. 2, Pushpa Devi, was selected for village Gurha Dakore.
4. A provisional select list was published inviting objections on 09.03.2011. No objections were received but the entire selection was again cancelled, this time on the pretext of issuance of a Government Order dated 04.09.2012. Several such selected candidates challenged the cancellation of selection this Court held that the said Government Order would not apply to cancel the selections which had been finalized though appointments were not made in pursuance of such selections.
5. One writ petition No. 11551 of 2013 filed by one Gyanwati along with several other writ petitions was allowed by this Court by order dated 26.08.2013 directing the appointments to be made in pursuance of the selections already held subject to certain conditions being met by the selected candidates. In pursuance of this order of this Court passed in Smt. Gyanwati Vs. State of U.P. and others, petitioners' writ petition namely Writ – A No. 42465 of 2014: Anjana Pathak and others Vs. State of U.P. was disposed off on 19.08.2014 by this Court, giving the same benefit as extended to Smt. Gyanwati the petitioners in writ petition No. 11551 of 2013.
6. The petitioners made a representation along with a copy of the judgment and order dated 19.08.2014 to the District Magistrate and the District Magistrate, Jalaun at Orai on 31.12.2014 directed that a fresh inquiry be conducted in the matter with regard to the eligibility of the petitioners and the genuineness of their documents along with all other selected candidates for other villages of the District concerned. With respect to the petitioner Ram Kumari a complaint had been received that she did not live in village Jai Shree Kalan and with respect to the petitioner No. 2, Pushpa, a complaint had been received that she was, in fact, married to one Natthu Singh Parihar fifteen years ago and was resident of village Bharuwa but had concealed material facts to obtain her domicile certificate on the address of her father from village Gurha Dakore. Her income certificate was also false.
7. It was in pursuance of the order dated 31.12.2014 that a three members Inquiry Committee was constituted under the chairmanship of SDM, Orai which submitted a report on 14.01.2015. In this report it was mentioned that the petitioner No. 1 was a widow and after the death of her husband had started living with her son at Orai and was earning her livelihood by sewing clothes. While petitioner No. 2 was alleged to be living with her disabled father, Natthu Singh who owned three acres of land and was earning Rs.60,000/- per year. She was also reported to be living with her disabled father at Orai and not at village Gudha Dakore.
8. Taking this report to be correct the District Magistrate by his order dated 31st of January, 2015 rejected the selection of Smt. Ram Kumari and Smt. Pushpa Devi as Anganwadi Karyakatri holding them to be ineligible. Aggrieved by the order of the District Magistrate dated 31.01.2015 this writ petition has been filed.
9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is a widow and had been shown to be living in village Jaisari Kalan by a subsequent report of Tehsildar. Similarly, the petitioner No. 2 was also found to be living in village Gudha Dakore by the subsequent report dated 26.09.2015. This subsequent report dated 26.09.2015 had been called for by the District Magistrate after the petitioners jointly submitted a representation to the District Magistrate o 04.02.2015. The District Magistrate on the said application directed the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Orai to hold an inquiry. A fresh report was called from Tehsildar, Orai. The Tehsildar, Orai by his report dated 26.09.2015 rstated that the petitioner No. 1 was living at village Jai Shree Kalan and was a widow and that the petitioner No. 2 was living with her father at Gudha Dakore and voter Identity Card, Ration Card, a copy of Pariwar Register and other documents submitted by the petitioners have been correctly issued. This report of Tehsildar was forwarded by the Sub Divisional Magistrate by his letter dated 03.10.2015. A copy of the report was received by the petitioners on an application being made by them to the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Orai by the District Programme Officer, Jalaun at Orai on 04.05.2016.
10. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that in the subsequent inquiry report true facts have come out with respect to both the petitioners and therefore, the order dated 31.01.2015 was liable to be set aside and the petitioners deserve to be appointed as Anganwadi workers in the respective villages.
11. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the initial report on the basis of which the selection of petitioners was made, was also sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Orai and the subsequent report was also sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Orai to the District Magistrate in pursuance of an order passed by the District Magistrate himself, therefore, he cannot be allowed to ignore the said report.
12. I have considered the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
13. The petitioners were selected in March, 2011. They have filed the copies of the domicile certificates issued to them by the competent authority i.e. the office of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Orai. The domicile certificates have not yet been cancelled. In the judgment and order dated 26.08.2013 which was relied upon by this Court in allowing the earlier writ petitions filed by the petitioners there was a specific mention that the principles of Natural Justice shall be followed and the candidates shall be associated with the inquiry conducted for verification of the documents and eligibility. The petitioners were, admittedly, not associated in the earlier inquiry dated 14.01.2015. The later inquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate dated 26.09.2015 brought on record by means of a Supplementary Affidavit states that the petitioners were residents of the villages concerned.
14. I find from the report dated 26.09.2015 sent by the Tehsildar that the petitioner No. 1 is widow and was found to be living in village Jai Shree Kalan by the Tehsildar and the domicile certificate to have been correctly issued. With regard to the petitioner No. 2, it had been reported she may have been married to a person living in village Bharuwa, but she was the daughter of one Natthu Singh who was a resident of village Gudha Dakore. Her father had land in the village. After the death of the petitioner No. 2's brother, she started living with her disabled father to take care of him in the village concerned. The earlier report had relied upon the property owned by her father but there is no finding recorded by Tehsildar Authorities that petitioner's husband owned any land, perhaps, such income. The income of the father of petitioner No. 2 cannot be clubbed with the income of the petitioner No. 2 to treat her income certificate issued on 04.03.2011 to have been wrongly issued. Moreover, the income certificate dated 04.03.2011 on the basis of which her selection was held had not yet been canclled by any council.
15. This writ petition is therefore allowed and the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 31.01.2015 is set aside and a direction is issued that appropriate appointment order be given to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the authority concerned.
Order Date :- 27.7.2018 LBY