High CourtsSingle Bench

Kushum (Nayal) Bora & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 12 April 2019 · Citation: (2019) 04 UK CK 0079

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1404 Of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

15 paragraphs · 968 words

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

1.

Miscellaneous application (IA No.1988 of 2018) is allowed. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5 is taken on record.

2.

The petitioners before this Court have challenged the appointment of respondent nos.5 and 6 who are appointed as "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" respectively for Anganbari Centre Anand Nagar, Tiliyapur, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.

3.

Initially on 18.12.2010, respondent no.5 was appointed as "Anganbari karyakarti" for Anganbari Centre, Anand Nagar, Tiliyapur, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. Against the appointment of respondent no.5, a complaint was made by the local villagers. On that complaint, the Child Development Project Officer, District Udham Singh Nagar cancelled the appointment of the respondent no.5 on 01.01.2011. Aggrieved, respondent no.5 filed a writ petition before this Court being WPSS No.190 of 2011. Since no opportunity of hearing was given to respondent no.5 while cancelling her appointment and since these appointments were made under a scheme published by way of a Government Order dated 24.02.2009, in which there was an Appellate Authority constituted to hear all kinds of grievances relating to appointment and cancellation, respondent no.5 (Petitioner in WPSS No.190 of 2011) was directed to approach the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority on 25.06.2011 passed an order in favour of respondent no.5 and consequently the Child Development Project Officer, Udham Singh Nagar vide its order dated 30.06.2011 re-inducted the respondent no.5 on the post of "Anganbari Karyakarti". This order has been challenged by the petitioners before this Court.

4.

The main ground for challenge is that the petitioners are also the residents of the same Village Anand Nagar, Tiliyapur, Tehsil Sitarganj and were the prospective candidates for the post of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" respectively for Anganbari Centre, Anand Nagar, Tiliyapur, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar. All the same, the posts of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" were never advertised. It is mandatory upon the Child Development Project Officer, Udham Singh Nagar to advertise these posts in terms of the scheme which has been published by the Government vide order dated 24.05.2009. Clause 7 of the said scheme says that the post has to be advertised in a newspaper having a wide circulation in the district.

5.

Counter affidavit has also been filed in this case by the State Government as well as by the private respondent nos.5 and 6.

6.

Neither the State Government nor the private respondent nos.5 and 6 who have been selected have not been able to show to this Court that any advertisement was issued for the posts of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" for Anganbari Centre, Anand Nagar, Tiliyapur, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.

7.

The facts are like this. An advertisement was issued by the Child Development Project Officer in a daily newspaper called "Amar Ujala" on 25.07.2010 asking applications from prospective candidates for various "Anganbari Centres" for the post of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika". Admittedly, the posts of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" were not advertised in the advertisement dated 25.07.2010 for Anganbari Centre Anand Nagar, Tiliyapur, Tehsil Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar with which we are presently concerned. Subsequently, vide order dated 28.07.2010 a public notice was issued which has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3, 4 and 7, wherein the Child Development Project Officer, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, states that due to a mistake the posts of certain "Anganbari Centres" could not be published in the advertisement dated 25.07.2010, such as "Anganbari Centre" Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar and the candidates may apply for those posts. Admittedly this is the position as of now. There are two flaws in the above public notice.

(a) Admittedly, this notice was never published in a newspaper having a wide circulation in District Udham Singh Nagar as is the requirement under the order dated 24.05.2009, whereby the scheme for appointment of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" has been made. Secondly, the names of the remaining "Anganbari centres" which could not be published in the advertisement dated 25.07.2010 have in any case not been given even in the public notice.

8.

Under these circumstances, the qualified candidates for the post of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" were in no position to apply for the posts, which includes Anganbari Centre, Anand Nagar, Tiliyapur, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar.

9.

Consequently the appointment of respondent nos. 5 and 6 for the post of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" is totally dehors the Rules as the due process which ought to have been adopted has not been followed.

10.

In view of the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.06.2011 by which the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have been appointed on the posts of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" respectively is hereby quashed.

11.

The Child Development Project Officer, Udham Singh Nagar and his superior officers who are in-charge of this matter shall re-advertise the posts of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika" within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received by them. However, it is made clear that till the selected candidates join the posts, respondent nos. 5 and 6 shall continue to function on the posts of "Anganbari Karyakarti" and "Sahayika".

12.

Meanwhile, the Secretary, Child Development, Government of Uttarakhand is directed to seek explanation from the Child Development Project Officer of Sitarganj, Udam Singh Nagar who was working as such on 28.07.2010 as to why he did not follow the mandatory provisions under the law as an inference can easily be drawn that this was done in order to give benefit to certain individuals.

13.

Registrar General of this Court is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this order to the Secretary, Child Development, Government of Uttarakhand for onward compliance.