Smt. Hema Koranga vs State of Uttarakhand & another

V.K. BIST, J.

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

“a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 passed by respondent no-5

(AnnexureNo-7).

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue serving as Anganbadi

Karyakarti.â€​

Facts in brief, are that on 28.07.2011, an advertisement was published in daily newspaper Amar Ujala for appointment of Aaganbadi Karyakarti and

Sahayika for various places including the Aaganbadi Centre Bansani, Village Kharku, Kanatoli Block, District Bageshwar. As per advertisement,

qualification for the post of Aaganbadi Karyakarti is that the candidate must be High School and must be between 18 to 44 years of age on

01.08.2011. The further eligibility in the advertisement was that the applicant must be a permanent resident of the same Village/ Ward/Tok for which

the Aaganbadi Centre has been sanctioned. Petitioner applied for the same, as the petitioner owned a residence as well as agricultural land in Basani

Tok. After completing the formalities, respondent no. 6 was given appointment. Against her appointment, a complaint was made by the petitioner

before the Sub Divisional Magistrate stating therein that the respondent no. 6 is not the permanent resident of Basani Tok where the Aaganbadi

Centre is situated. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kapkot conducted an inquiry in this regard and found that the respondent no. 6 is not a permanent

resident of Basani Tok. Therefore, on 22.05.2012, the service of respondent no. 6 was terminated and in her place, petitioner was appointed on the

post of Aaganbadi Karyakarti. Against this termination order, the respondent no. 6 filed WPSS No. 735 of 2012, ‘Champa Devi Rathore Vs. State

of Uttarakhand and others’. The said writ petition was dismissed on 25.05.2015. Against the order dated 25.05.2015, respondent no. 6 filed

Special Appeal No. 325 of 2015 before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench set-aside the impugned order and directed the official

respondent to make a fresh inquiry in the matter and give opportunity of hearing to all the affected parties and pass a fresh order. It was directed that

till order is passed, petitioner shall continue on the post of Aaganbadi Karyakarti. Thereafter, inquiry was conducted. Inquiry report was submitted on

24.08.2016 and on 21.09.2016, order impugned has been passed by respondent no. 5, whereby the respondent no. 6 has been appointed on the post of

Aaganbadi Karyakarti.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The first argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no inquiry was conducted before passing the order impugned and no opportunity

of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the resident of Basani

Tok where Aaganbadi Centre is situated. He submitted that due to natural calamity, petitioner shifted from that place to Mangair Tok. He submitted

that by shifting to another Tok for time being due to natural calamity does not mean that petitioner does not belong to Basani Tok, therefore, it cannot

be said that petitioner is not the resident of Basani Toak. He further submitted that the respondent no. 5, while passing the order impugned totally

ignored the fact that the petitioner is permanent resident of Basani Tok. He submitted that petitioner alone is entitled to be appointed as Aaganbari

Karyakarti. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the order dated 12.06.2018 issued by the Office of Sub Divisional Magistrate Kapkot,

wherein it is mentioned that the school building is situated on the land of the petitioner. He submitted that Aaganbari Centre is being run in that school.

Though, this fact has been denied by counsel for respondent no. 6.

Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 opposed the writ petition. He submitted that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kapkot held

a proper inquiry and submitted the inquiry report on 24.08.2016. He submitted that it is clear from the inquiry report that the petitioner appeared and

recorded her statement before the S.D.M. Kapkot. She admitted before the Inquiry Officer that she shifted from Basani Tok to Mangair Tok. She

also admitted that alongwith her application, she annexed the document regarding her residence at Mangair Tok. Thus, it cannot be said that she is

resident of Basani.

Learned Brief Holder referred to the inquiry report in which it is written that, on the basis of the report of the Revenue Inspector, it is clear that the

family of the petitioner is residing in Mangair Tok for last 15 to 20 years and the said report was also annexed alongwith the application form of the

petitioner. Learned Brief Holder submitted that since it is admitted to the petitioner that petitioner is residing in Mangair Tok where the respondent no.

6 was also residing, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is correct one.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. Earlier the petitioner was the resident of Basani Tok. But, she shifted to

Mangair Tok few years ago. For claiming the benefit of being resident of Basani Tok, the petitioner should have annexed the relevant papers

regarding her residence in Basani Tok, which she did not annex. Rather alongwith her application, she annexed document showing that she is resident

of Mangair Tok. Therefore, now at this stage, the authorities cannot be directed to consider the case of the petitioner by considering the petitioner as

permanent resident of Basani Tok.

From the perusal of the inquiry report, I find that the petitioner appeared before Inquiry Officer, recorded her statement and also admitted the fact

that she has annexed the document alongwith application form showing her resident of Mangair Tok. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that

opportunity of hearing was not afforded to her is incorrect. Further, the inquiry report has also not been challenged by the petitioner.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 23.03.2018 is hereby vacated.

No order as to costs.