Suneeta vs Kavita & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The application seeking condonation of delay is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

This appeal is preferred by the fifth respondent in the Writ petition aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1015 of 2018 dated 01.11.2018.

Consequent on a process of selection being undertaken, the respondent-writ petitioner was selected as an Anganbadi Karyakarti in the Anganbadi Centre, Koti Village, Purola Tehsil, Uttarkashi District. On a complaint made by the father-in-law of the appellant, the respondent -writ petitioner's appointment was cancelled, by order dated 28.02.2018, on the ground that she had secured appointment as a candidate belonging to the Below Poverty Line (for short "BPL") category, though, during the relevant period, she was working as a "woman motivator" in the "Jalgam Project", for which she was getting remuneration of Rs.2,000/- per month.

It was the respondent-writ petitioner's case that, while she had worked earlier for a period of three years at the "Jalgam Project", her BPL card had been renewed, when her candidature was considered for appointment as an Anganbadi Karyakarti; and it was not as if she had procured the BPL card by deceit or forgery.

It is evident from the order under appeal that the appellant had secured thirteen marks as against the eleven marks secured by the respondent-writ petitioner and, while the appellant claimed preference on the ground that she was working as an Assistant Anganbadi Karyakarti in Mori Tehsil of Uttarkashi District, the learned Single Judge has held that the experience of the appellant of two years, as an Assistant Anganbadi Karyakarti, should have been in the very same Anganbadi Centre, for which the Anganbadi Karyakarti was being appointed. Since the respondent-writ petitioner was given preference as a BPL candidate, she was working as an Anganbadi Karyakarti at the subject centre, and as the appellant was still working as an Assistant Anganbadi Karyakarti at Anganbadi Centre Mori, the learned Single Judge opined that rejection of the respondent-writ petitioner's appointment as an Anganbadi Karyakarti, at the Anganbadi Centre Koti, Purola, was on unsustainable grounds. The Writ Petition was allowed and the order dated 28.02.2018, cancelling the appointment of the respondent-writ petitioner, was quashed.

Before us Mr. Dinesh Gahatori, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the inquiry report revealed that the petitioner had falsely procured the BPL card; only persons, whose annual income is Rs.15,000/- or less, are entitled for a BPL card; the respondent-writ petitioner was working in a project where she was being paid Rs.2,000/-per month which, by itself, showed that she was above the poverty line; and, in such circumstances, the authorities were justified in cancelling her appointment, and in directing an advertisement to be issued inviting applications afresh.

Mr. S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would however contend that the inquiry report, based on which the order of termination was passed, was prepared behind the writ petitioner's back, without even giving her an opportunity of being heard.

Any finding in an inquiry report, to the detriment of a person, could only have been recorded after the said person was put on notice, and was given an opportunity of being heard. Since the impugned order of termination was based on an inquiry conducted behind the respondent-writ petitioner's back, suffice it to modify the order under appeal to the limited extent that the order under appeal would not disable the respondents from putting the respondent-writ petitioner on notice, give her an opportunity of being heard and, thereafter, determine whether the BPL certificate, produced by her, was valid or not. In case, the inquiry report reveals that the writ petitioner was above the poverty line, it would always be open to the official respondents to take action against the respondent-writ petitioner in accordance with law.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.