Smt. Sua Lali vs State of U.P. and Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner, requesting therein that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued by quashing order dated 25.4.2007 passed by District Programme Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri and the consequential order dated 14.5.2007 passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Behjam, Kheri.

Brief background of the case, as disclosed in writ petition, is that applications were invited by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari on 18.1.2006 for making selection and appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri. The last date for submission of application form war. 31.1.2006. Petitioner along with one another incumbent, namely, Ms. Sunita Kumar had applied for consideration of her claim for the post in question for Gram Panchayat Kari Pokhar, Block Behjam Kheri. Along with the application, petitioner had appended her High School certificate, caste certificate, domicile certificate and the extract of family register. There were only two candidates in fray. As far as candidature of Ms. Sunita Kumar is concerned, she had claimed herself from the below poverty line category, but as income certificate was procured by her by practicing fraud, her candidature was ignored, and the petitioner remained as lone candidate in fray. Her claim was considered by Selection Committee constituted for the said purpose, and requisite recommendation was made in favour of petitioner. Thereafter recommendation in question was approved by District Level Committee and subsequent to the same appointment was offered to petitioner, in pursuance of which petitioner started performing and discharging duties as Anganbadi Karyakatri. Thereafter some complaint appears to have been made, and based on the same, order impugned has been passed, dispensing with the services of petitioner.

Counter affidavit has been filed, and therein the only plea taken for cancelling the appointment of petitioner is that petitioner had not appended copy of income certificate along with her application form, as such her candidature was not sustainable.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit.

After pleadings inter se parties have been exchanged and original record has also been produced, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.

Sri Ankur Sinha, learned Counsel for petitioner, Contended with vehemence, that as far as candidates belonging to above poverty line category are concerned, filing of income certificate alone with the application form seeking appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri is not mandatory, inasmuch as, no benefit is to be derived out of the same, and once conscious decision was taken by the Selection Committee and the recommendation so made was ratified and approved by the District Level Committee and the petitioner having resumed her duties, had even started performing and discharging duties in the said capacity, petitioner''s candidature was not liable to be cancelled. As has been sought to be done in the present case, as such the order impugned is an arbitrary exercise of the authority, as such same deserves to be quashed.

Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, countered the said submission by contending that once requisite criteria was not adhered to, then the candidature of petitioner has rightly been cancelled and the order impugned warrants no interference, writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position, which is emerging, is to the effect that in the present case petitioner and one Ms. Sunita Kumar had applied for consideration of their candidature for the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri. Candidature of Ms. Sunita Kumar was non-suited, as she had procured BPL income certificate by practicing fraud, as such she was treated to be outside the zone of consideration. Thereafter petitioner remained the lone candidate in fray. The Selection Committee considered her claim, and finding her suitable, recommended her name for the post in question. Said recommendation was subsequently approved and ratified by District Level Committee, and appointment loiter was issued in her favour, and she in pursuance thereof started performing and discharging duties as Anganbadi Karyakatri. Thereafter it appears that some complaint was filed, on the same enquiry was sought to be conducted, and then it was delected that petitioner had not appended income certificate along with her application form. Based on the same her services have been dispensed with by means of impugned order.

Under the relevant policy for making selection and appointment on the post of Anganbadi Karyakatri, preferential treatment has to be given to following incumbents; (i) widow lady; (ii) the lady who has been deserted by her husband; and the incumbents who are from below poverty line category. Thereafter selection and appointment has to be made as per procedure prescribed under the said policy. The advertisement is on original record, same clearly reflects that in respect of educational qualification, documents were to be filed duly attested by a gazetted officer. As far as widow lady was concerned, she was required to file death certificate of her husband duly certified by A.D.O. (Panchayat). As far as deserted lady was concerned, she was required to file order/certificates from competent Court. As far as a candidate from below poverty line category was concerned, he/she had to file income certificate in order to derive preferential treatment. As far as a candidate from above poverty line category are concerned, though they are required to file income certificate, but as no benefit is to be extended to said category of incumbents of said income certificate and said certificate had no nexus with the merit of selection, as such filing of income certificate by above poverty line category candidate was clearly directory and not mandatory. In the present case even if at the time of submitting application form, petitioner had not appended income certificate though she submitted the same subsequently, her candidature on that ground alone was not liable to be cancelled in view of the fact that no benefit on the basis of income certificate had been extended to her, and specially when conscious decision was taken by the District Level Committee on the recommendation so made by the Selection Committee for offering appointment to petitioner.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 25.4.2007 passed by District Programme Officer, Lakhimpur Kheri and the i consequential order dated 14.5.2007 passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Behjam, Kheri, are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to restore petitioner in service and pay her all consequential benefits attached to the post in question.

No order as to costs.