Smt.Rama Devi vs State Of U.P.Thru Secy.Bal Vikas Andpushtahar

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. While entertaining the present writ petition on 03.01.2020, notice was issued to respondent No.6, namely, Smt. Keshpati, wife of Sri Om Prakash Verma, who is presently working on the post of Aganwadi Karyakatri which is the post claimed by the petitioner, she being at the top of the merit list in the BPL category, however, no one appeared on her behalf despite of sufficient notice. The notice was also issued on 03.01.2020 to respondent No.7, who passed the order dated 17.06.2019 challenging in the present writ petition. Service report dated 11.02.2020 available on record in the present writ petition reads as under : "As per report dated 10.01.2020, notices issued to opposite party nos.6 & 7 through Registered Post A.D. vide dispatch No.401 & 402 dated 18.01.2020. [O/C tagged in file] As per available record, neither any unserved envelope is received in the Section till date nor any power is filed as yet."

3. The notices upon respondent Nos.6 and 7 are deemed to be sufficiently served in view of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII Rule 12, Explanation II of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Despite of notices being served on respondent Nos.6 and 7, no one has appeared for the parties, 2 WRIA No. 36875 of 2019 hence the present writ petition is being finally heard.

4. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 17.06.2019 passed by Chief Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar (respondent No.5) and for a direction to decide the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri on the basis of recommendation dated 27.05.2009 and 25.04.2011.

5. For the relief as has been sought, reliance has been placed upon the approval of the recommendation sent by the Selection Committee in accordance with the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the District Programme Officer, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar.

6. In the present case, the petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement dated

12.01.2006 inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, applied through an application dated 27.01.2006. Since the petitioner did not receive any response, she filed an application dated 06.02.2007 under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and in pursuance thereof, a letter dated

18.04.2007 was issued stating that the petitioner stood at Sl. No.1 in the merit list among the candidates of Below Poverty Line (BPL) category and one Smt. Keshpati (respondent No.6) at Sl. No.2. However, the Chairman of the Selection Committee made note on the select list that there is requirement of inquiry to test the veracity of the income certificate of the petitioner and Smt. Keshpati. It was further informed that income certificate of both of them has been sent for enquiry at Tehsil level. Interestingly, by then, the Tehsildar, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar has already cancelled the income certificate vide order dated 13.02.2006, but that fact was not disclosed in the letter dated 18.04.2007. Later, when petitioner came to know of the order dated 13.02.2006, cancelling her income certificate, she filed Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008 challenging the order dated

13.02.2006 in which interim order dated 14.08.2008 was passed staying the income certificate cancellation order dated 13.02.2006. The petitioner submitted letter dated 26.08.2008 to C.D.P.O. claiming appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri as the income certificate of the petitioner stood revived and became operative by virtue of interim order dated

14.08.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008. The C.D.P.O. 3 WRIA No. 36875 of 2019 did not respond to the letter dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioner and hence, petitioner submitted application dated 16.12.2009 but the petitioner was not given appointment.

7. As consequence of the interim order dated 14.08.2008, the income certificate dated 20.12.2005 revived and order to such extent was also passed by Tehsildar on 15.10.2008.

8. Feeling Aggrieved, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1756 (S/S) of 2010 seeking relief for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri on the ground that the cancellation order of the income certificate of the petitioner had been stayed by the Hon'ble Court, and as such, she had a right to be appointed on the said post on the basis of decision of the Selection Committee. The Writ Petition No.1756 (S/S) of 2010 was disposed of vide order dated 14.02.2011, directing the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar to take a final call on the issue.

9. The District Magistrate thereafter passed an order dated 25.04.2011 wherein it was stated that the appointment of respondent No.6 would continue as it is subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008 wherein the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of her income certificate.

10. The earlier Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008 challenging the cancellation of income certificate of the petitioner was finally disposed off vide order dated 14.09.2016 with a direction to the Tehsildar to take a final decision in the matter regarding the veracity of the income certificate of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ultimately, the Tehsildar, after due inquiry, vide its order dated 23.12.2017 held that the income certificate issued to petitioner on 20.12.2005 is genuine and restored the income certificate of the petitioner.

11. Subsequently, as no steps were taken by the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, she being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.8178 (S/S) of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated

23.04.2019 with a direction to opposite party No.4, i.e., C.D.P.O., Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, to take a decision on the show cause notice which had already been issued on 11.01.2018 to respondent No.6. 4 WRIA No. 36875 of 2019

12. The direction was in the light of the background that, since the income certificate of the petitioner had been restored and her appointment was subject to the decision/final outcome in the writ petition of 5971 (M/B) of 2008, hence now the petitioner has a right to be appointed against the post on which respondent No.6 had been allowed to continue vide order dated

25.04.2011 passed by District Magistrate subject to final outcome of then pending Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008.

13. The C.D.P.O., Tanda, Ambedkar (respondent No.4), thereafter passed the order dated 17.06.2019, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The C.D.P.O., while rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment, relied upon the order dated 23.08.2006, which in fact is the guideline with regard to selection on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri/Assistant in such cases where the certificates/documents submitted by the selected candidates at Sl. No.1 are found to be incorrect upon subsequent verification.

14. This Court is of the view that the reliance placed by the C.D.P.O. on the order dated 23.08.2006 issued by the Director, Bal Vikas Avam Pustahar while passing the order dated 17.06.2019 is completely misconceived, inasmuch as in the present case, after the inquiry, the income certificate of the petitioner was found to be genuine. The C.D.P.O. passed order dated

17.06.2019 oblivion of the fact that the income certificate of the petitioner was ultimately found to be genuine one as held by Tehsildar while passing off the order dated 23.12.2017 and the District Magistrate has allowed opposite party No.6 to continue on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri for the time being subject to final outcome of Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008 while passing order dated 25.04.2011. In fact, the guidelines contained in the order dated 23.08.2006 is in favour of the petitioner as her income certificate was found ultimately genuine by Tehsildar while passing order dated

23.12.2017 and she was on the top of select list in the B.P.L. category.

15. The petitioner has to undergo a torturous litigation process to establish her right, despite being at the top in the select list in B.P.L. category. Ultimately, her income certificate was found to be genuine for which she was unnecessarily harassed and denied appointment. She was denied appointment on the basis of the order dated 17.06.2019, which has been 5 WRIA No. 36875 of 2019 passed in utter disregard of factual position as discussed hereinabove and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

16. The authorities should have immediately appointed the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri after finally coming to conclusion that income certificate issued to the petitioner on 20.12.2005 was genuine, but she was made to run from pillor to post. To make matter worse, the order dated

17.06.2019 was passed by C.D.P.O. in complete ignorance of the factual position, rejecting the claim of petitioner for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri. The order dated 17.06.2019 passed by C.D.P.O. in cursory and routine manner amounts to non-application of mind and is highly deprecable and deserves to be quashed. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.06.2019 passed by the C.D.P.O., Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to ensure the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Aganwadi Karyakatri in Village/Center Utrehthu, Block Tanda, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. October 9, 2025 Shubhankar (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. While entertaining the present writ petition on 03.01.2020, notice was issued to respondent No.6, namely, Smt. Keshpati, wife of Sri Om Prakash Verma, who is presently working on the post of Aganwadi Karyakatri which is the post claimed by the petitioner, she being at the top of the merit list in the BPL category, however, no one appeared on her behalf despite of sufficient notice. The notice was also issued on 03.01.2020 to respondent No.7, who passed the order dated 17.06.2019 challenging in the present writ petition. Service report dated 11.02.2020 available on record in the present writ petition reads as under : "As per report dated 10.01.2020, notices issued to opposite party nos.6 & 7 through Registered Post A.D. vide dispatch No.401 & 402 dated 18.01.2020. [O/C tagged in file] As per available record, neither any unserved envelope is received in the Section till date nor any power is filed as yet."

3. The notices upon respondent Nos.6 and 7 are deemed to be sufficiently served in view of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII Rule 12, Explanation II of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Despite of notices being served on respondent Nos.6 and 7, no one has appeared for the parties, 2 WRIA No. 36875 of 2019 hence the present writ petition is being finally heard.

4. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 17.06.2019 passed by Chief Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O.), Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar (respondent No.5) and for a direction to decide the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri on the basis of recommendation dated 27.05.2009 and 25.04.2011.

5. For the relief as has been sought, reliance has been placed upon the approval of the recommendation sent by the Selection Committee in accordance with the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the District Programme Officer, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar.

6. In the present case, the petitioner, in pursuance of the advertisement dated

12.01.2006 inviting applications for the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, applied through an application dated 27.01.2006. Since the petitioner did not receive any response, she filed an application dated 06.02.2007 under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 and in pursuance thereof, a letter dated

18.04.2007 was issued stating that the petitioner stood at Sl. No.1 in the merit list among the candidates of Below Poverty Line (BPL) category and one Smt. Keshpati (respondent No.6) at Sl. No.2. However, the Chairman of the Selection Committee made note on the select list that there is requirement of inquiry to test the veracity of the income certificate of the petitioner and Smt. Keshpati. It was further informed that income certificate of both of them has been sent for enquiry at Tehsil level. Interestingly, by then, the Tehsildar, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar has already cancelled the income certificate vide order dated 13.02.2006, but that fact was not disclosed in the letter dated 18.04.2007. Later, when petitioner came to know of the order dated 13.02.2006, cancelling her income certificate, she filed Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008 challenging the order dated

13.02.2006 in which interim order dated 14.08.2008 was passed staying the income certificate cancellation order dated 13.02.2006. The petitioner submitted letter dated 26.08.2008 to C.D.P.O. claiming appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri as the income certificate of the petitioner stood revived and became operative by virtue of interim order dated

14.08.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008. The C.D.P.O. 3 WRIA No. 36875 of 2019 did not respond to the letter dated 26.08.2008 of the petitioner and hence, petitioner submitted application dated 16.12.2009 but the petitioner was not given appointment.

7. As consequence of the interim order dated 14.08.2008, the income certificate dated 20.12.2005 revived and order to such extent was also passed by Tehsildar on 15.10.2008.

8. Feeling Aggrieved, petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1756 (S/S) of 2010 seeking relief for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri on the ground that the cancellation order of the income certificate of the petitioner had been stayed by the Hon'ble Court, and as such, she had a right to be appointed on the said post on the basis of decision of the Selection Committee. The Writ Petition No.1756 (S/S) of 2010 was disposed of vide order dated 14.02.2011, directing the District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar to take a final call on the issue.

9. The District Magistrate thereafter passed an order dated 25.04.2011 wherein it was stated that the appointment of respondent No.6 would continue as it is subject to the final outcome of Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008 wherein the petitioner has challenged the cancellation of her income certificate.

10. The earlier Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008 challenging the cancellation of income certificate of the petitioner was finally disposed off vide order dated 14.09.2016 with a direction to the Tehsildar to take a final decision in the matter regarding the veracity of the income certificate of the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ultimately, the Tehsildar, after due inquiry, vide its order dated 23.12.2017 held that the income certificate issued to petitioner on 20.12.2005 is genuine and restored the income certificate of the petitioner.

11. Subsequently, as no steps were taken by the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri, she being aggrieved, filed Writ Petition No.8178 (S/S) of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated

23.04.2019 with a direction to opposite party No.4, i.e., C.D.P.O., Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, to take a decision on the show cause notice which had already been issued on 11.01.2018 to respondent No.6. 4 WRIA No. 36875 of 2019

12. The direction was in the light of the background that, since the income certificate of the petitioner had been restored and her appointment was subject to the decision/final outcome in the writ petition of 5971 (M/B) of 2008, hence now the petitioner has a right to be appointed against the post on which respondent No.6 had been allowed to continue vide order dated

25.04.2011 passed by District Magistrate subject to final outcome of then pending Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008.

13. The C.D.P.O., Tanda, Ambedkar (respondent No.4), thereafter passed the order dated 17.06.2019, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The C.D.P.O., while rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment, relied upon the order dated 23.08.2006, which in fact is the guideline with regard to selection on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri/Assistant in such cases where the certificates/documents submitted by the selected candidates at Sl. No.1 are found to be incorrect upon subsequent verification.

14. This Court is of the view that the reliance placed by the C.D.P.O. on the order dated 23.08.2006 issued by the Director, Bal Vikas Avam Pustahar while passing the order dated 17.06.2019 is completely misconceived, inasmuch as in the present case, after the inquiry, the income certificate of the petitioner was found to be genuine. The C.D.P.O. passed order dated

17.06.2019 oblivion of the fact that the income certificate of the petitioner was ultimately found to be genuine one as held by Tehsildar while passing off the order dated 23.12.2017 and the District Magistrate has allowed opposite party No.6 to continue on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri for the time being subject to final outcome of Writ Petition No.5971 (M/B) of 2008 while passing order dated 25.04.2011. In fact, the guidelines contained in the order dated 23.08.2006 is in favour of the petitioner as her income certificate was found ultimately genuine by Tehsildar while passing order dated

23.12.2017 and she was on the top of select list in the B.P.L. category.

15. The petitioner has to undergo a torturous litigation process to establish her right, despite being at the top in the select list in B.P.L. category. Ultimately, her income certificate was found to be genuine for which she was unnecessarily harassed and denied appointment. She was denied appointment on the basis of the order dated 17.06.2019, which has been 5 WRIA No. 36875 of 2019 passed in utter disregard of factual position as discussed hereinabove and is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

16. The authorities should have immediately appointed the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri after finally coming to conclusion that income certificate issued to the petitioner on 20.12.2005 was genuine, but she was made to run from pillor to post. To make matter worse, the order dated

17.06.2019 was passed by C.D.P.O. in complete ignorance of the factual position, rejecting the claim of petitioner for appointment on the post of Anganwadi Karyakatri. The order dated 17.06.2019 passed by C.D.P.O. in cursory and routine manner amounts to non-application of mind and is highly deprecable and deserves to be quashed. As a result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 17.06.2019 passed by the C.D.P.O., Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar is hereby quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent Nos.3 and 4 to ensure the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Aganwadi Karyakatri in Village/Center Utrehthu, Block Tanda, Tehsil Tanda, District Ambedkar Nagar within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. October 9, 2025 Shubhankar (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) SHUBHANKAR THAKUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench