Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Vineeta Devi v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 23976 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 9967 (23 May 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition   No.   23976   of  2007

Smt. Vineeta Devi  .......................................    Petitioner


State of Uttar Pradesh & others   ...................          Respondents


Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

By this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.12.2006 passed by the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari    by which order the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari worker  has been cancelled.  The petitioner was selected for appointment as Anganwari worker and joined the post on 17th/22nd August, 2006. The District Magistrate appointed some enquiry committee  which recommended  for cancellation of the selection.  The District Magistrate also passed an order on 1.12.2006 cancelling the selection of entire Block and directed for fresh selection.  It appears that some letter was  also received from the Directorate  dated 6.12.2006.  The order impugned mentions that a show cause notice was also issued to the petitioner on 12.12.2006. The order further state that no reply was submitted by the petitioner hence it is to be accepted that the petitioner has nothing to say and the selection has been cancelled.  Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order contended that no notice or opportunity was given tot he petitioner  before cancelling the selection.  Specific allegation to this effect has been made in the writ petition.  Learned counsel for the petitioner  has also placed reliance on an order of this Court dated 12.2.2007  passed in writ petition No. 7080 of 2007  Smt. Hemlata vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others .  The said writ petition also relates to the appointment of Anganwari worker of the same district.  The order of the same date was passed in that case cancelling the appointment  on the premise that the show cause notice dated 12.12.2006 has not been replied.  This Court relying on the specific averments of the petitioner that no notice was given before cancelling the selection directed the petitioner to appear before the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari   with reply to the show cause notice  and the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari  was directed to pass fresh order after considering the reply. Copy of the said order has been brought on record of the writ petition No. 23947 of 2007.

I have considered the submissions of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.    

The impugned order dated 20.12.2006 mentions that the show cause notice dated  12.12.2006 has not been replied.  hence it is to be presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say. The order of the District Magistrate directing for cancellation of the entire selection was neither communicated to the petitioner nor has been brought on the record.  The appointment having been cancelled by the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to have her say on the alleged irregularity  in the selection. Since the petitioner has already been selected.  In view of the facts of the case ends of justice be served in disposing of the writ petition setting aside the order dated 20.12.2006 and permitting the petitioner to submit detailed reply to the show cause notice  dated 12.12.2006 within a period of four weeks from today.  The petitioner may obtain copy of notice  from the Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari   within two weeks and in case an application is submitted the show cause notice  be given to the petitioner. The Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari   shall take fresh decision in accordance with law after considering the reply of the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations.  




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.