Smt. Sarita v. Counsel for

1. Heard Shri Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that a notification came to be published as per the Government Order dated 16.12.2003 for appointment and selection of the Anganwadi worker for the Village Tophapur, Block Parikshitgarh, Tehsil Mawana, District Meerut. The writ petitioner claims to have applied alongwith other incumbents and she was selected and accordingly on 27.08.2004, the third respondent, Child Development Project Officer, Parikshitgarh, District Meerut proceeded to issue selection/appointment order and the writ petitioner assumed the charge on the said post. It is the case of the writ petitioner that one Gyan Chandra son of Ram Prasad and Kawarpal Yadav son of Vijay Pal, who bore animosity with the writ petitioner preferred a complaint questioning the entitlement, competence and eligibility of the writ petitioner for being appointed on the post of Anganwadi worker. As per the writ petitioner, pursuant to the direction dated 19.03.2013 of the District Programme Officer, Meerut, the respondent no. 3, Child Development Project Officer, 2 WRIA No. 20098 of 2014 Parikshitgarh, District Meerut proceed to submit its enquiry report dated

15.04.2013. Further another report came to be submitted on 06.04.2013 and thereafter, a show cause notice came to be issued to the writ petitioner show causing her by the Child Development Project Officer, Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, to which, the writ petitioner tendered her reply and thereafter, the order impugned came to be passed on 05.03.2014 respondent, Child Development Project Officer, Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, dispensing with the appointment of the writ petitioner.

5. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order putting the service of the writ petitioner at naught cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the same proceeds on incorrect facts. Submission is that the entire basis of the conducting investigation/enquiry culminating into passing of the impugned order is based upon personal vendetta of the complainant against the writ petitioner. It is also contended that the husband of the writ petitioner is not a regular employee in Postal Department as his appointment is temporary as he is engaged as Dakpal in a village wherein there is no fixed salary or pay scale but the remuneration depends upon the quantum of the work so assigned which stands varied from time to time as per the work so entrusted. Submission is to the extent also that the golden figure so sought to be derived by the third respondent in the impugned order while dislodging entitlement and the claim of the writ petitioner is preposterous besides being out of context, particularly, when the husband of the writ petitioner at no point of time either in the year 2004 or any time prior or subsequent thereto was drawing the Pay Scale of Rs. 2745-50-4245 and there is no question of drawing of a salary of Rs. 3133/- per month. Submission is that the remuneration of the writ petitioner was below Rs. 19,884/- per annum and thus, the writ petitioner's entitlement stood fitted in the eligibility criteria so earmarked in the Government Order dated 04.09.2012 for making selection and appointment of Anganwadi Karyakartini. Contentions raised by the writ petitioner in its objection to the show cause notice has been conveniently brushed aside without considering the same. Thus, according to the writ petitioner, the order impugned be set aside. 3 WRIA No. 20098 of 2014

7. Shri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the order impugned which is subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings takes into its ambit each and every aspect of the matter and it is not a case wherein the third respondent in his office has prepared something as he has sought information from the employer of the husband of the writ petitioner and on the basis of the documents available on record which were placed before the third respondent, the order came to be passed. It is also contended that the finding that the salary of the husband of the writ petitioner is Rs. 3133/- per month and drawing a Pay Scale of Rs. 2745-50-4245 has not been seriously or specifically challenged in any of the paragraphs of the writ petition. He submits that once there is no serious challenge that to backed on documentary evidence then decision of the authorities cannot be doubted or said to be invalid on any reason whatsoever.

8. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

9. Apparently the issue lies in a very narrow compass. The entitlement of the writ petitioner to be selected and appointed as Anganwadi worker is an issue. Undoubtedly, the selections are conducted in pursuance of the Government Order dated 04.09.2012, according to which, para 3 talks about selection/eligibility which reads as under: "क-(1) सवर््ऺथम अपेि्षत अहर्ता रखने वाली गामीण ्षे्ऴों में उसी ्षाम सभा तथा शहरी ्षे्ऴों में उसी वाडर् में िस्थत के न््श की सहाियका िजसकी न्यूनतम अहर्कारी सेवा 05 वषर् की पूरी हो चुकी हो तथा हाईस्कू ल उ्तीणर् हो। सहाियका से कायर्क्ऴर् के पद पर चयन में यह ध्यान रखा जाय िक िकसी भी दशा में आर्षण ्ऺभािवत न हो अथवा ्ऺचिलत/िव्यमान आर्षण ्ऺि्वया का उल्लंघन िकसी भी दशा में न िकया जाय। II) आंगनवाड़ी कायर्क्ऴर्, िमनी आंगनवाड़ी कायर्क्ऴर् एवं सहाियकाओं की िनयुि्व / चयन गरीबी रेखा के नीचे जीवन यापन करने वाले पिरवार के सदस्यों को ्ऺथम वरीयता देते हुए चयिनत िकया जायेगा, िजनके नाम बी०पी०एल० सूची में पहले से सिम्मिलत हैं उन्हें आय ्ऺमाण प्ऴ देने की आवश्यकता नहीं होगी। ऐसे पिरवार जो गरीबी की रेखा से नीचे जीवन यापन कर रहे हैं और उनके नाम बी०पी०एल० सूची में सिम्मिलत नहीं हैं, उन्हें आय ्ऺमाण प्ऴ स्षम स्तर से ्ऺाप्त करके देना होगा। वतर्मान में गरीबी की रेखा का मानदण्ड ्षामीण ्षे्ऴ में वािषक आय रु० 19884/- तथा शहरी ्षे्ऴ में रू० 25546/- िनधार्िरत है।" 4 WRIA No. 20098 of 2014

10. Thus, amongst others one of the criteria would be the income of the family, that is, close proximity of the respective candidates. As per the criteria in the rural area, the annual income should not be more than Rs. 19884/- per annum and in urban area Rs. 25546/-. Here in the present case, in the order impugned, a specific finding has been recorded that the husband of the writ petitioner is employed/ engaged in Post Office in the year 2004. He was drawing Pay Scale of 2745-50-4245 and salary of Rs. 3133/- per month. It is also mentioned in the order impugned that the said information was made available to the examining authority from the Post Office through communication. The writ petitioner though has made an feeble attempt to question the said finding on the ground that the husband of the writ petitioner was a Dakpal and it is not a regular post which attracts fixed salary or pay scale but the same is dependent upon the quantum of the work so entrusted. The said determination which was made basis of rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner has not been doubted or questioned on the basis of the records even the reply to the show cause notice is general in nature as vague as it can be possible.

11. Looking into the aforesaid aspect of the matter including the finding so recorded by the third respondent in the order impugned, this Court is not required to dwell into the factual issues. Accordingly, interference is declined.

12. This writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the writ petitioner to take legal recourse as available under law.

13. The Government Order dated 04.09.2012 is taken on record and marked as appendix 'A'. October 9, 2025 A. V. Singh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Amish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Shri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record.

3. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage.

4. The case of the writ petitioner is that a notification came to be published as per the Government Order dated 16.12.2003 for appointment and selection of the Anganwadi worker for the Village Tophapur, Block Parikshitgarh, Tehsil Mawana, District Meerut. The writ petitioner claims to have applied alongwith other incumbents and she was selected and accordingly on 27.08.2004, the third respondent, Child Development Project Officer, Parikshitgarh, District Meerut proceeded to issue selection/appointment order and the writ petitioner assumed the charge on the said post. It is the case of the writ petitioner that one Gyan Chandra son of Ram Prasad and Kawarpal Yadav son of Vijay Pal, who bore animosity with the writ petitioner preferred a complaint questioning the entitlement, competence and eligibility of the writ petitioner for being appointed on the post of Anganwadi worker. As per the writ petitioner, pursuant to the direction dated 19.03.2013 of the District Programme Officer, Meerut, the respondent no. 3, Child Development Project Officer, 2 WRIA No. 20098 of 2014 Parikshitgarh, District Meerut proceed to submit its enquiry report dated

15.04.2013. Further another report came to be submitted on 06.04.2013 and thereafter, a show cause notice came to be issued to the writ petitioner show causing her by the Child Development Project Officer, Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, to which, the writ petitioner tendered her reply and thereafter, the order impugned came to be passed on 05.03.2014 respondent, Child Development Project Officer, Parikshitgarh, District Meerut, dispensing with the appointment of the writ petitioner.

5. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the order putting the service of the writ petitioner at naught cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the same proceeds on incorrect facts. Submission is that the entire basis of the conducting investigation/enquiry culminating into passing of the impugned order is based upon personal vendetta of the complainant against the writ petitioner. It is also contended that the husband of the writ petitioner is not a regular employee in Postal Department as his appointment is temporary as he is engaged as Dakpal in a village wherein there is no fixed salary or pay scale but the remuneration depends upon the quantum of the work so assigned which stands varied from time to time as per the work so entrusted. Submission is to the extent also that the golden figure so sought to be derived by the third respondent in the impugned order while dislodging entitlement and the claim of the writ petitioner is preposterous besides being out of context, particularly, when the husband of the writ petitioner at no point of time either in the year 2004 or any time prior or subsequent thereto was drawing the Pay Scale of Rs. 2745-50-4245 and there is no question of drawing of a salary of Rs. 3133/- per month. Submission is that the remuneration of the writ petitioner was below Rs. 19,884/- per annum and thus, the writ petitioner's entitlement stood fitted in the eligibility criteria so earmarked in the Government Order dated 04.09.2012 for making selection and appointment of Anganwadi Karyakartini. Contentions raised by the writ petitioner in its objection to the show cause notice has been conveniently brushed aside without considering the same. Thus, according to the writ petitioner, the order impugned be set aside. 3 WRIA No. 20098 of 2014

7. Shri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that the order impugned which is subject matter of challenge in the present proceedings takes into its ambit each and every aspect of the matter and it is not a case wherein the third respondent in his office has prepared something as he has sought information from the employer of the husband of the writ petitioner and on the basis of the documents available on record which were placed before the third respondent, the order came to be passed. It is also contended that the finding that the salary of the husband of the writ petitioner is Rs. 3133/- per month and drawing a Pay Scale of Rs. 2745-50-4245 has not been seriously or specifically challenged in any of the paragraphs of the writ petition. He submits that once there is no serious challenge that to backed on documentary evidence then decision of the authorities cannot be doubted or said to be invalid on any reason whatsoever.

8. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the record carefully.

9. Apparently the issue lies in a very narrow compass. The entitlement of the writ petitioner to be selected and appointed as Anganwadi worker is an issue. Undoubtedly, the selections are conducted in pursuance of the Government Order dated 04.09.2012, according to which, para 3 talks about selection/eligibility which reads as under: "क-(1) सवर््ऺथम अपेि्षत अहर्ता रखने वाली गामीण ्षे्ऴों में उसी ्षाम सभा तथा शहरी ्षे्ऴों में उसी वाडर् में िस्थत के न््श की सहाियका िजसकी न्यूनतम अहर्कारी सेवा 05 वषर् की पूरी हो चुकी हो तथा हाईस्कू ल उ्तीणर् हो। सहाियका से कायर्क्ऴर् के पद पर चयन में यह ध्यान रखा जाय िक िकसी भी दशा में आर्षण ्ऺभािवत न हो अथवा ्ऺचिलत/िव्यमान आर्षण ्ऺि्वया का उल्लंघन िकसी भी दशा में न िकया जाय। II) आंगनवाड़ी कायर्क्ऴर्, िमनी आंगनवाड़ी कायर्क्ऴर् एवं सहाियकाओं की िनयुि्व / चयन गरीबी रेखा के नीचे जीवन यापन करने वाले पिरवार के सदस्यों को ्ऺथम वरीयता देते हुए चयिनत िकया जायेगा, िजनके नाम बी०पी०एल० सूची में पहले से सिम्मिलत हैं उन्हें आय ्ऺमाण प्ऴ देने की आवश्यकता नहीं होगी। ऐसे पिरवार जो गरीबी की रेखा से नीचे जीवन यापन कर रहे हैं और उनके नाम बी०पी०एल० सूची में सिम्मिलत नहीं हैं, उन्हें आय ्ऺमाण प्ऴ स्षम स्तर से ्ऺाप्त करके देना होगा। वतर्मान में गरीबी की रेखा का मानदण्ड ्षामीण ्षे्ऴ में वािषक आय रु० 19884/- तथा शहरी ्षे्ऴ में रू० 25546/- िनधार्िरत है।" 4 WRIA No. 20098 of 2014

10. Thus, amongst others one of the criteria would be the income of the family, that is, close proximity of the respective candidates. As per the criteria in the rural area, the annual income should not be more than Rs. 19884/- per annum and in urban area Rs. 25546/-. Here in the present case, in the order impugned, a specific finding has been recorded that the husband of the writ petitioner is employed/ engaged in Post Office in the year 2004. He was drawing Pay Scale of 2745-50-4245 and salary of Rs. 3133/- per month. It is also mentioned in the order impugned that the said information was made available to the examining authority from the Post Office through communication. The writ petitioner though has made an feeble attempt to question the said finding on the ground that the husband of the writ petitioner was a Dakpal and it is not a regular post which attracts fixed salary or pay scale but the same is dependent upon the quantum of the work so entrusted. The said determination which was made basis of rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner has not been doubted or questioned on the basis of the records even the reply to the show cause notice is general in nature as vague as it can be possible.

11. Looking into the aforesaid aspect of the matter including the finding so recorded by the third respondent in the order impugned, this Court is not required to dwell into the factual issues. Accordingly, interference is declined.

12. This writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the writ petitioner to take legal recourse as available under law.

13. The Government Order dated 04.09.2012 is taken on record and marked as appendix 'A'. October 9, 2025 A. V. Singh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad