High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Parvati Devi And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. 48001 of 2006  RD-AH 15509 (6 September 2006)
Court No. 38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48001 of 2006
Smt. Parvati Devi and others
State of U.P. and others
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48010 of 2006
Smt. Kamla Devi and others
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Petitioners of writ petition No.48001 of 2006 claim that they are validly appointed Anganbari Karyakartri, and the petitioners of writ petition No.48010 of 2006 claim that they are validly appointed Anganbari Sahayika, and both set of petitioners have been sought to be restrained from discharging and performing their duties on the strength of order dated 05.08.2006 communicated by District Programming Officer, Mau. the said communication dated 05.08.2006 reflects that the Secretary,Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas, U./P. Lucknow on 01.08.2006 has given directives for forestalling further proceeding and consequent thereto letter has been written by District Magistrate and other officials directing that if appointment letters have not been issued, the same will not be issued, and further no work shall be taken from the incumbents.
On the matter being taken up today, record in question has been produced, on the basis of which impugned decision in question has been taken. Record reveals that qua selections made, large scale complaints have been made, specially qua the conduct of District Programming Officer Sri Hirday Narain. Complaints in substance are that the merit has been compromised, and the candidates who were below poverty line have been left out and ineligible candidates have been selected. Based on these complaints said decision has been taken.
Seeing the nature of the complaint, it would be expedient that enquiry is conducted in the matter and thereafter decision be taken as to whether said appointments are to be retained or cancelled, and whether the incumbents are liable to continue. This Court in the case of Kiran Sonkar and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ADJ 670 has taken the view that decision for cancellation of selection in mass should be taken after conducting comprehensive inquiry and the same should not be cancelled merely on the basis of suspicion in the mind of the Government. Relevant paragraphs 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 32 of the judgment are quoted below:
"22. The scheme in question is a child welfare scheme and the nature of the employment may not be, in the strict sense a public employment, yet the principle that governs selections and about which the principles have been fairly and elaborately enunciated in the decisions of the Apex Court relief upon by the petitioners would in the opinion of the Court apply to such engagements as well. Aanganbadi workers seeking promotion this court in a couple of decisions, has already arrived a conclusion that a writ petition would be maintainable in such matters. The Court has arrived at this conclusion by recognizing and acknowledging the importance of the service rendered, namely the integrated Child Development Services. The principle enunciated by the Apex Court in the matters of public employment therefore can be pressed into service to gauge the correctness or otherwise of the process of selections of Aanganbadi workers and assistants.
23. The Government order dated 16.12.2003 is sufficiently comprehensive prescribing the manner of selection. A perusal of clause (iii) of the Government order, which indicates the procedure of selection, reflects an objective mode of selection without there being any provision for holding an interview. The selections have to be held from the category of women indicated therein and according to the educational qualifications prescribed. The manner of awarding marks in respect of educational qualifications is clearly stipulated and therefore, the selections have to be held objectively. The certificates which are required pertaining to the income of a candidate has to be issued by the Tehsildar concerned. The constitution of the selection committee reflects a fair representation of the woken from every section of the society. In view of the aforesaid procedure which is almost objective in nature it would not be difficult to identify any individual irregularity or illegality. It will be a matter of simple scrutiny of the documents and the manner of award of marks for judging the merit of a candidate. There being no element of subjectivity involved in the selection process, there would no difficulty in identifying any irregularity and disqualifying an undeserving candidate. There being a complete procedure provided for assessing the validity of selection, it would not be necessary to cancel any and every selections as has been attempted by the State Government.
24. The incident which occurred at Maharajganj block district Jaunpur was an incident in respect of a particular Child Development Officer who was found to have indulged in unwarranted and nefarious activities and as such the action taken by the respondents was justified. However just one stray incident which was detected cannot be made the basis for canceling the selections throughout the State and thereby putting in jeopardy the process of selections which in the opinion of the court would amount to violation of the order of the Apex Court dated 7.10.2004 referred to herein above.
25. The appropriate measure which could have been taken by the State Government was to have first got an inquiry conducted by some high level committee in order to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the complaints so as to undertake a measure of general nature. There are as many as 70 districts in the State of U.P. and almost 57 thousand villages comprising of several thousand blocks. The records of the petition including facts stated in the counter affidavit, do not indicate any such large scale bungling which could justify the cancellation of the entire selection of the State. Even otherwise the Government order does not indicate any such material nor any such report which could have been made the basis for canceling the selections throughout the State. The measures undertaken by the State Government for canceling the selections throughout the State appears to have been taken to hurriedly.
27. Whenever a complaint is received the same has to be inquired into on the basis of grievances raised therein. If the complaint is of an individual nature then the same can be examined at the block level and a report submitted to the appropriate authority for taking action in the matter . In such circumstances there cannot be a general direction for cancellation of the selections throughout the State of U.P. The measure adopted under the impugned Government Order therefore in the opinion of the Court was absolutely uncalled for step and the same could have been minimized by issuing directions in respect of such incidents which deserved to be inquired into and proceeded with in accordance with law, This would have also not burdened the administration with the exercise of holding fresh selections even where there were no complaints. It is not the case of the State Government that it is not possible to make any such inquiry or it was impossible to control such individual aberrations which were reported to it. the State Govt. could have issued directions to the respective authorities for taking appropriate action in the matter of Block Maharajganj district Jaunpur action has been taken and which will be proceeded with in accordance with law. The selections in the block Maharajganj can be examined and fresh selections can be ordered in view of the incident which was reported. this would, however, not justify the cancellation of selections throughout the State of U.P.
32. In view of the findings arrived at here kn above, I am of the considered opinion that the State Govt. should not have take such a decision without holding and conducting a comprehensive enquiry in this respect. the decision to cancel the selections throughout the State on the basis of material disclosed in the counter affidavit does not appear to be justified and is unsustainable."
Consequently, in the present case also Secretary, Mahila Kalyan Evam Bal Vikas, Lucknow is directed to get the matter inquired and thereafter decision be taken on the basis of the report so received as to whether petitioners' appointment is liable to continue or is liable to be cancelled. Till the enquiry is not concluded and out come of the same is not known, the impugned order shall continue to remain in operation and shall abide by the decision taken in the inquiry undertaken hereafter. Entire exercise be concluded within next four months.
In view of what has been stated above, writ petitions are disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.