Sneha Verma v. Counsel for

Srivastava Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. A statement has been made by Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that pursuant to a Government Order dated 21.03.2023 an advertisement came to be issued on 05.09.2024 inviting application for appointment of Aganwadi Karyakatri and the writ petitioner being fully eligible and qualified in all respects applied in pursuance thereof showing his income to be Rs. 45,000/- per annum an income certified dated

08.04.2024 and thereafter post selection, she was selected and an appointment order came to be issued on 21.03.2025. While the writ petitioner was continuing to discharge the duties, a complaint stood lodged against the petitioner with an allegation that the writ petitioner had practiced fraud and had also not disclosed her actual income which was over and above 45,000/- and the District Magistrate sought an inquiry from Tehsildar and an ex parte inquiry report came to be submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 19.04.2025. The said report was forwarded to the office of District Program Officer by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on

25.04.2025 and the District Program Officer on 25.04.2025 issued a notice to the writ petitioner to appear for hearing on 02.05.2025 and on 02.05.2025, the writ petitioner appeared before the Committee and post hearing the writ 2 WRIA No. 15755 of 2025 petitioner, an order came to be passed on 19.05.2025 dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner as Aganwadi Karyakatri by the order of the District Program Officer, Varanasi which was dispatched to the writ petitioner on 14.07.2025.

4. Questioning the order dated 14.05.2025 dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner as Aganwadi Karyakatri, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained for even a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that it is always open for the employer to conduct inquiry and investigation in order to find out whether the testimonials and the documents so furnished by the prospecting writ petitioner who seeks appointment and who has been offered appointment is correct or not but there is a procedure for doing so. Contention is that here in the present case, though the writ petitioner was asked to submit her clarification and the writ petitioner had set forth her contentions clarified each and every aspect of the matter but the District Program Officer in the zeal of negating the claim of the writ petitioner in a single line without recording any reasons in coming to the conclusions and negated the claim of the writ petitioner. Submission is that the principles of natural justice and fair play are implicit particularly when, in case, transparency is not there and the contentions are not met out then the issuance of the show cause notice and hearing would be an empty formality.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that from the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that a conscious has been taken by the respondents in coming to the conclusion that the annual income of the writ petitioner is over and above Rs. 45,000/- but according to him, the considerations which weighed with the authority are not explicitly forthcoming from the order in question. According to him, the order be set aside, matter be remitted to the authority to pass a fresh order.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner applied for engagement as Aganwadi Karyakatri and she was accorded appointment on 21.03.2025 and a complaint stood lodged against the writ petitioner pursuant 3 WRIA No. 15755 of 2025 whereto inquiry report was submitted and the writ petitioner was directed to appear on 02.05.2025 for hearing and the writ petitioner appeared. However, the grievance of the writ petitioner is that the contentions so set forth by the writ petitioner have not been considered and they have been brushed aside and overlooked and conveniently avoided. The relevant extract of the impugned order is quoted hereinunder.- "मुख्य िवकास अिधकारी (अध्यक्ष चयन सिमित) के समक्ष िदनांक 02.05.2025 को सुनवाई के पीरान श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् द्वारा अपने प्रत्यावेदन में अवगत कराया है िक जाँच आख्या में दो मंिजला मकान इनके जेठ लोगों द्वारा बनाया गया है उन्हें एक कमरा िदया गया है िजसमें िकसी प्रकार गुजर बसर िकया जा रहा है। कु आर बाजार में िनजी मोबाइल, कु लर, पंखा का दुकान उनकी जेठान श्रीमती आरती देवी के िहस्से में है सहयोग के रूप में दुकान पर उनके पित बैठते है परन्तु उन्हें कोई पेमेन्ट वगैरह नहीं िमलता है। उनके िहस्से में दो बीघे जमीन के सन्दभर् में अवगत कराया गया िक उनकी 23 िवस्ता जमीन है जो एक बीधा श्री मनीष राजभर ग्राम अिहरानी को 6000 वािषक पर कृ िष कायर् हेतु िदया गया है शेष पर उनके द्वारा सिब्जयों बोई जाती है। मौजा टेआप में अराजी नं0 382 में से रकबा 0.0220 हे० अपनी भाभी, पाली व बहन को आनुपण िगरवी रखकर

260000.00 में खरीदी गयी है परन्तु पिरवार द्वारा आभुषण मांगे जाने पर उसे बेचे जाने हेतु ग्राहक की तलाश की जा रही है इस प्रकार उनके द्वारा तहसील िपण्डरा से उनकी समस्त स्रोतों से िनगर्त आय प्रमाण पत्र रू- 45000.00 वािषक सही बताते हुये प्राथर्ना पत्र प्रस्तुत िकया गया है। िकन्तु उपिजलािधकारी िपण्डरा वाराणसी की जाँच आख्या के आधार पर श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् पत्नी श्री श्रवण कु मार वमार् िनगर्त आय प्रमाण पत्र संख्या 671241015115 में मािसक आय रू-3750.00 कु ल वािषक आय -45000.00 को गलत मतःया गया है एवं उनकी िनगर्ट वािषक आय रु-4500000 से अिधक की बतायी गयी है िजसपर श्रीमती स्नेहा धमार् द्वारा कोई ऐसा साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया िजससे उनकी आय गरीबी रेखा से नीचे प्रमािणत होती हो। श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् द्वारा अपनी वास्तिवक आय को िछपाकर गरीबी रेखा के नीचे का आय प्रमाण पत्र बनवाकर अनुिचत तरीके से कायर्कत्री पद पर चयन का लाभ प्राप्त िकया गया है। श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् का आय प्रमाण पत्र संख्या 671241015115 िदनांक 08.04.2024 उपिजलािधकारी िपण्डस के आदेश संख्या 949 िदनांक 25 अप्रैल 2025 द्वारा िनरस्त िकया गया है जो िक श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् के चयन का मुख्य आधार था। श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् के आथ प्रमाण पत्र को बटाकर चयन हेतु इनकी मेिरट का परीक्षण या गया िजसके अनुसार वह सवोर्च्च वरीयता पर नहीं आती। इस प्रकार श्रीमती वमार् का गरीबी रेखा के नीचे की आय का लाभ प्रदान करते हुए िकया गया चयन िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। आंगनवाड़ी कायर्कत्री पद पर चयन हेतु िनगर्त शासनादेश संख्या 19/2023/3975/58-1-2022-2/1(22) 10 टी०सी० िदनांक 21.03.2023 में पैरा 3 के (ग) 111 में यह विणत है िक िवधवा/त्लाकशुदा/पिरत्यक्ता मिहला के गरीबी रेखा से नीचे जीवन यापन करने वाले पिरवार का अभ्यथीर् न िमलने पर उसी ग्रामसभा/वाडर् (शहरी क्षेत्रों में) की गरीबी रेखा से नीचे जीवन यापन करने वाली पिरवार की मिहला होना अिनवायर् है। इस प्रकार श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् के पक्ष में िनगर्त आय प्रमाण पत्र िनरस्त कर िदये जाने से उनकी पात्रता समाप्त हो जाती है। 4 WRIA No. 15755 of 2025 अतः उपरोक्त विणत तथ्यों के आधार पर चयन शासनादेश संख्या-19 िदनांक 21.03.2023 में विणत व्यवस्थानुसार दुसार िजलािधकारी वाराणसी के अनुमोदन िदनांक 13.05.2025 के अनुक्रम में श्रीमती स्नेहा यां पत्नी श्री श्रवण कु मार वमार् आंगनबाड़ी कायर्कत्री के न्द्र नथईपुर, बाल िवकास पिरयोजना बडागाँव वाराणसी का चयन िनरस्त करते हुये मानदेय सेवा एत्द द्वारा समाप्त की जाती है।"

9. A bare look of the order impugned would reveal that the writ petitioner had given a specific reply and clarification regarding the land holding and the income and also the house where she is living coming up with stand that she does not possess even an inch of residential house and she is living in the house of Jeth and her income is not over and above Rs. 45,000/- and she harped upon the income certificate but the District Program Officer, Varanasi negated the claim holding that the income of the writ petitioner is over and above Rs. 45,000/-. Importantly, something more was needed to be recited in the order as mere recital that income is over and above Rs. 45,000/- would not suffice and here it should be backed with some material which evidently is lacking. Since the order in question does not test the mandate of law and it is cursory besides being non speaking, unreasoned and cryptic, thus, the same cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms.- (a) the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by District Program Officer, Varanasi, fifth respondent is set aside; (b) matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order; (c) the writ petitioner shall submit a self attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the order before the authority concerned by 07.11.2025 and the authority shall pass a fresh order within a period six weeks from today.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 28, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Srivastava Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. A statement has been made by Sri Gaya Prasad Singh, learned Standing Counsel that he does not propose to file any affidavit and the writ petition be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that pursuant to a Government Order dated 21.03.2023 an advertisement came to be issued on 05.09.2024 inviting application for appointment of Aganwadi Karyakatri and the writ petitioner being fully eligible and qualified in all respects applied in pursuance thereof showing his income to be Rs. 45,000/- per annum an income certified dated

08.04.2024 and thereafter post selection, she was selected and an appointment order came to be issued on 21.03.2025. While the writ petitioner was continuing to discharge the duties, a complaint stood lodged against the petitioner with an allegation that the writ petitioner had practiced fraud and had also not disclosed her actual income which was over and above 45,000/- and the District Magistrate sought an inquiry from Tehsildar and an ex parte inquiry report came to be submitted before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 19.04.2025. The said report was forwarded to the office of District Program Officer by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on

25.04.2025 and the District Program Officer on 25.04.2025 issued a notice to the writ petitioner to appear for hearing on 02.05.2025 and on 02.05.2025, the writ petitioner appeared before the Committee and post hearing the writ 2 WRIA No. 15755 of 2025 petitioner, an order came to be passed on 19.05.2025 dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner as Aganwadi Karyakatri by the order of the District Program Officer, Varanasi which was dispatched to the writ petitioner on 14.07.2025.

4. Questioning the order dated 14.05.2025 dispensing with the services of the writ petitioner as Aganwadi Karyakatri, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained for even a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is submitted that it is always open for the employer to conduct inquiry and investigation in order to find out whether the testimonials and the documents so furnished by the prospecting writ petitioner who seeks appointment and who has been offered appointment is correct or not but there is a procedure for doing so. Contention is that here in the present case, though the writ petitioner was asked to submit her clarification and the writ petitioner had set forth her contentions clarified each and every aspect of the matter but the District Program Officer in the zeal of negating the claim of the writ petitioner in a single line without recording any reasons in coming to the conclusions and negated the claim of the writ petitioner. Submission is that the principles of natural justice and fair play are implicit particularly when, in case, transparency is not there and the contentions are not met out then the issuance of the show cause notice and hearing would be an empty formality.

6. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that from the perusal of the order impugned, it is clear that a conscious has been taken by the respondents in coming to the conclusion that the annual income of the writ petitioner is over and above Rs. 45,000/- but according to him, the considerations which weighed with the authority are not explicitly forthcoming from the order in question. According to him, the order be set aside, matter be remitted to the authority to pass a fresh order.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully.

8. Facts are not in issue. It is not in issue that the writ petitioner applied for engagement as Aganwadi Karyakatri and she was accorded appointment on 21.03.2025 and a complaint stood lodged against the writ petitioner pursuant 3 WRIA No. 15755 of 2025 whereto inquiry report was submitted and the writ petitioner was directed to appear on 02.05.2025 for hearing and the writ petitioner appeared. However, the grievance of the writ petitioner is that the contentions so set forth by the writ petitioner have not been considered and they have been brushed aside and overlooked and conveniently avoided. The relevant extract of the impugned order is quoted hereinunder.- "मुख्य िवकास अिधकारी (अध्यक्ष चयन सिमित) के समक्ष िदनांक 02.05.2025 को सुनवाई के पीरान श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् द्वारा अपने प्रत्यावेदन में अवगत कराया है िक जाँच आख्या में दो मंिजला मकान इनके जेठ लोगों द्वारा बनाया गया है उन्हें एक कमरा िदया गया है िजसमें िकसी प्रकार गुजर बसर िकया जा रहा है। कु आर बाजार में िनजी मोबाइल, कु लर, पंखा का दुकान उनकी जेठान श्रीमती आरती देवी के िहस्से में है सहयोग के रूप में दुकान पर उनके पित बैठते है परन्तु उन्हें कोई पेमेन्ट वगैरह नहीं िमलता है। उनके िहस्से में दो बीघे जमीन के सन्दभर् में अवगत कराया गया िक उनकी 23 िवस्ता जमीन है जो एक बीधा श्री मनीष राजभर ग्राम अिहरानी को 6000 वािषक पर कृ िष कायर् हेतु िदया गया है शेष पर उनके द्वारा सिब्जयों बोई जाती है। मौजा टेआप में अराजी नं0 382 में से रकबा 0.0220 हे० अपनी भाभी, पाली व बहन को आनुपण िगरवी रखकर

260000.00 में खरीदी गयी है परन्तु पिरवार द्वारा आभुषण मांगे जाने पर उसे बेचे जाने हेतु ग्राहक की तलाश की जा रही है इस प्रकार उनके द्वारा तहसील िपण्डरा से उनकी समस्त स्रोतों से िनगर्त आय प्रमाण पत्र रू- 45000.00 वािषक सही बताते हुये प्राथर्ना पत्र प्रस्तुत िकया गया है। िकन्तु उपिजलािधकारी िपण्डरा वाराणसी की जाँच आख्या के आधार पर श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् पत्नी श्री श्रवण कु मार वमार् िनगर्त आय प्रमाण पत्र संख्या 671241015115 में मािसक आय रू-3750.00 कु ल वािषक आय -45000.00 को गलत मतःया गया है एवं उनकी िनगर्ट वािषक आय रु-4500000 से अिधक की बतायी गयी है िजसपर श्रीमती स्नेहा धमार् द्वारा कोई ऐसा साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया िजससे उनकी आय गरीबी रेखा से नीचे प्रमािणत होती हो। श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् द्वारा अपनी वास्तिवक आय को िछपाकर गरीबी रेखा के नीचे का आय प्रमाण पत्र बनवाकर अनुिचत तरीके से कायर्कत्री पद पर चयन का लाभ प्राप्त िकया गया है। श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् का आय प्रमाण पत्र संख्या 671241015115 िदनांक 08.04.2024 उपिजलािधकारी िपण्डस के आदेश संख्या 949 िदनांक 25 अप्रैल 2025 द्वारा िनरस्त िकया गया है जो िक श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् के चयन का मुख्य आधार था। श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् के आथ प्रमाण पत्र को बटाकर चयन हेतु इनकी मेिरट का परीक्षण या गया िजसके अनुसार वह सवोर्च्च वरीयता पर नहीं आती। इस प्रकार श्रीमती वमार् का गरीबी रेखा के नीचे की आय का लाभ प्रदान करते हुए िकया गया चयन िनरस्त िकये जाने योग्य है। आंगनवाड़ी कायर्कत्री पद पर चयन हेतु िनगर्त शासनादेश संख्या 19/2023/3975/58-1-2022-2/1(22) 10 टी०सी० िदनांक 21.03.2023 में पैरा 3 के (ग) 111 में यह विणत है िक िवधवा/त्लाकशुदा/पिरत्यक्ता मिहला के गरीबी रेखा से नीचे जीवन यापन करने वाले पिरवार का अभ्यथीर् न िमलने पर उसी ग्रामसभा/वाडर् (शहरी क्षेत्रों में) की गरीबी रेखा से नीचे जीवन यापन करने वाली पिरवार की मिहला होना अिनवायर् है। इस प्रकार श्रीमती स्नेहा वमार् के पक्ष में िनगर्त आय प्रमाण पत्र िनरस्त कर िदये जाने से उनकी पात्रता समाप्त हो जाती है। 4 WRIA No. 15755 of 2025 अतः उपरोक्त विणत तथ्यों के आधार पर चयन शासनादेश संख्या-19 िदनांक 21.03.2023 में विणत व्यवस्थानुसार दुसार िजलािधकारी वाराणसी के अनुमोदन िदनांक 13.05.2025 के अनुक्रम में श्रीमती स्नेहा यां पत्नी श्री श्रवण कु मार वमार् आंगनबाड़ी कायर्कत्री के न्द्र नथईपुर, बाल िवकास पिरयोजना बडागाँव वाराणसी का चयन िनरस्त करते हुये मानदेय सेवा एत्द द्वारा समाप्त की जाती है।"

9. A bare look of the order impugned would reveal that the writ petitioner had given a specific reply and clarification regarding the land holding and the income and also the house where she is living coming up with stand that she does not possess even an inch of residential house and she is living in the house of Jeth and her income is not over and above Rs. 45,000/- and she harped upon the income certificate but the District Program Officer, Varanasi negated the claim holding that the income of the writ petitioner is over and above Rs. 45,000/-. Importantly, something more was needed to be recited in the order as mere recital that income is over and above Rs. 45,000/- would not suffice and here it should be backed with some material which evidently is lacking. Since the order in question does not test the mandate of law and it is cursory besides being non speaking, unreasoned and cryptic, thus, the same cannot be sustained.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms.- (a) the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by District Program Officer, Varanasi, fifth respondent is set aside; (b) matter stands remitted back to the authority to pass a fresh order; (c) the writ petitioner shall submit a self attested copy of the writ petition and certified copy of the order before the authority concerned by 07.11.2025 and the authority shall pass a fresh order within a period six weeks from today.

11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. October 28, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.)