High Court · 2025

1- Heard Sri Skand Bajpai, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the records. 2- The review applicant has earlier approached this Court by means of filing Writ-A No. 6813 of 2025 (Mrs. Mohini Pandey Versus Mrs. Ranika Singh and four others). In this petition following reliefs were sought:- "A. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of quo warranto ousting the 1st respondent (Mrs. Ranika Singh) from the office of Anganwadi Executive (Karyakarti) at Kunjalpur 2, Mankapur, Gonda and declare her appointment ab initio void and non est; B. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Final Selected Candidate List for Anganwadi Recruitment 2024 for the post of Anganwadi Executive (Karyakarti) at Kunjalpur, District Gonda (Annexure-5 from page 32); C. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the warrant of appointment of the 1st respondent issued by the 3rd (District Magistrate Gonda) & 5th respondents (District Program Officer Child Development Gonda) after summoning the warrant of appointment from the 3rd & 5th respondents and declare the same as ab initio void and non est, Annexure No.5; D. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd (District Magistrate Gonda) & 5th (District Program Officer Child Development Gonda) respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Executive (Karyakarti) at Kunjalpur 2, Mankapur, Gonda;" 3- The present review application has been filed for the following main relief:- "A. Allow this application and pass an order reviewing/recalling the final order dated 11.06.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 6813 of 2025 titled as Mrs. Mohini Pandey versus Mrs. Ranika Singh & 4 Ors. and restore the matter to its original number for adjudication on merits [Annexure-1 from page 10 to 14.]; B. Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) in favour of the applicant-petitioner as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience." 4- It is apparent from the record, in nutshell, that challenging the appointment of opposite party no.1, who was provided appointment on the post of 'Anganwadi Executive (Karyakarti) at Kunjalpur 2, Mankapur, District Gonda, the Writ-A No. 6813 of 2025 was filed for the reliefs, quoted in paragraph no.2 of this order. 5- This Court on 11.06.2025, the date of order under review, confronted Sri Skand Bajpai learned Counsel for the petitioner, after taking note of settled principle by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Neetu singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 587 as also the fact that services of opposite party no.1 has already been terminated, and the writ petition was dismissed based upon the statement of learned Counsel for the petitioner. Relevant portion of order dated 11.06.2025 reads as under:- "4. On being confronted after taking note of the principles settled in regard to writ of quo warranto as also the fact that the respondent no. 1 has already been terminated, after arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the reliefs no. A to C, the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn and with regard to relief no. D, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the competent authority by submitting a representation which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents has no objection.

5. In view of the above, the petition with regard to the reliefs no. A to C is dismissed as withdrawn and with regard to relief no. D, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority, which shall be considered and decided by the competent authority by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after taking note of relevant rules and law on the issue, most expeditiously. " 6- The present review application has been filed on the basis of subsequent event/fact, which is the the order of this Court dated 27.06.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 6878 of 2025 (Smt. Ranika Singh Versus State of U.P. and Others). The order dated 27.06.2025 being relevant, reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Assailing the order impugned dated 05.06.2025 whereby the services of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Karyakarti have been dispensed with, it is urged that termination is solely on the ground of cancellation of an income certificate of petitioner's husband by the Tehsildar on 20.05.2025 i.e. 15 days prior to passing of the order impugned. It is urged that order impugned has been passed committing flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same cannot stand. Reliance has been placed upon Division Bench judgement of this Court in Pushpa Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (23) LCD 1247.

3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that in such cases grant of opportunity of hearing may not always be required as per the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), as the case of the petitioner is based upon wrong information furnished to the Department. He also seeks time to ascertain as to whether any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner or not.

4. Prima facie, on perusal of Clause 13 of the Government Order, it does not reflect that termination can be made without granting any opportunity. The said clause is divided into three sub-clauses and when the same are read alongwith reasoning recorded in the order impugned, it is, prima facie, found that the Authority wrongly proceeded to pass the order impugned observing that adherence of principles of natural justice is not required in the given facts of the case.

5. Considering the material placed and the submissions made as well as the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in Pushpa Pandey (supra), a prima facie case for grant for interim relief stands made out.

6. Three weeks' time is granted to the learned Standing Counsel for filing a detailed counter affidavit.

7. One week time thereafter is granted to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

8. List this case for final disposal on 11.08.2025 before appropriate Bench.

9. In the meantime, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the District Programme Officer, Gonda (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed. " 7- The order aforesaid indicates that this Court stayed the implementation and operation of order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the District Programme Office, Gonda. 8- At this stage it would be apt to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Versus Church of South India Trust Association, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed with regard to the "effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge and effect of quashing of an order". The paragraph 10 of the same, is extracted hereinunder:- "10. In the instant case, the proceedings before the Board under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act had been terminated by order of the Board dated April 26, 1990 whereby the Board, upon consideration of the facts and material before it, found that the appellant-company had become economically and commercially non-viable due to its huge accumulated losses and liabilities and should be wound up. The appeal filed by the appellant-company under Section 25 of the Act against said order of the Board was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated January 7, 1991. As a result of these orders, no proceedings under the Act were pending either before the Board or before the Appellate Authority on February 21, 1991 when the Delhi High Court passed the interim order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991. The said stay order of the High Court cannot have the effect of reviving the proceedings which had been disposed of by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991. While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that if an order passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and the matter is remanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after the quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the Appellate Authority continues in to exist in law and so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any proceedings under the Act were pending before the Board or the Appellate Authority on the date of the passing of the order dated August 14, 1991 by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court for winding up of the company or on November 6, 1991 when the Division Bench passed the order dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed by the respondents. This is the only question that has been canvassed in Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1992, directed against the order for winding up of the appellant-company. The said appeal, therefore, fails and is liable to be dismissed." 9- Taking note of the aforesaid including that the writ petition was dismissed for the reliefs no. A to C, on the statement of Sri Skand Bajpai as also the effect of stay, this Court is of the view that present petition is liable to be dismissed. 10- Accordingly, the present review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1- Heard Sri Skand Bajpai, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the records. 2- The review applicant has earlier approached this Court by means of filing Writ-A No. 6813 of 2025 (Mrs. Mohini Pandey Versus Mrs. Ranika Singh and four others). In this petition following reliefs were sought:- "A. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of quo warranto ousting the 1st respondent (Mrs. Ranika Singh) from the office of Anganwadi Executive (Karyakarti) at Kunjalpur 2, Mankapur, Gonda and declare her appointment ab initio void and non est; B. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the Final Selected Candidate List for Anganwadi Recruitment 2024 for the post of Anganwadi Executive (Karyakarti) at Kunjalpur, District Gonda (Annexure-5 from page 32); C. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of certiorari quashing the warrant of appointment of the 1st respondent issued by the 3rd (District Magistrate Gonda) & 5th respondents (District Program Officer Child Development Gonda) after summoning the warrant of appointment from the 3rd & 5th respondents and declare the same as ab initio void and non est, Annexure No.5; D. Allow this petition and pass an order(s) or direction(s) in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the 3rd (District Magistrate Gonda) & 5th (District Program Officer Child Development Gonda) respondents to forthwith appoint the petitioner on the post of Anganwadi Executive (Karyakarti) at Kunjalpur 2, Mankapur, Gonda;" 3- The present review application has been filed for the following main relief:- "A. Allow this application and pass an order reviewing/recalling the final order dated 11.06.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 6813 of 2025 titled as Mrs. Mohini Pandey versus Mrs. Ranika Singh & 4 Ors. and restore the matter to its original number for adjudication on merits [Annexure-1 from page 10 to 14.]; B. Pass any other order(s) or direction(s) in favour of the applicant-petitioner as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience." 4- It is apparent from the record, in nutshell, that challenging the appointment of opposite party no.1, who was provided appointment on the post of 'Anganwadi Executive (Karyakarti) at Kunjalpur 2, Mankapur, District Gonda, the Writ-A No. 6813 of 2025 was filed for the reliefs, quoted in paragraph no.2 of this order. 5- This Court on 11.06.2025, the date of order under review, confronted Sri Skand Bajpai learned Counsel for the petitioner, after taking note of settled principle by this Court in the judgment passed in the case of Dr. Neetu singh Versus State of U.P. reported in 2019 SCC OnLine All 587 as also the fact that services of opposite party no.1 has already been terminated, and the writ petition was dismissed based upon the statement of learned Counsel for the petitioner. Relevant portion of order dated 11.06.2025 reads as under:- "4. On being confronted after taking note of the principles settled in regard to writ of quo warranto as also the fact that the respondent no. 1 has already been terminated, after arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that with regard to the reliefs no. A to C, the petition may be dismissed as withdrawn and with regard to relief no. D, the petitioner may be permitted to approach the competent authority by submitting a representation which may be directed to be decided within a time frame fixed by this Court to which learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents has no objection.

5. In view of the above, the petition with regard to the reliefs no. A to C is dismissed as withdrawn and with regard to relief no. D, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the competent authority, which shall be considered and decided by the competent authority by means of a reasoned and speaking order, after taking note of relevant rules and law on the issue, most expeditiously. " 6- The present review application has been filed on the basis of subsequent event/fact, which is the the order of this Court dated 27.06.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 6878 of 2025 (Smt. Ranika Singh Versus State of U.P. and Others). The order dated 27.06.2025 being relevant, reads as under:- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Assailing the order impugned dated 05.06.2025 whereby the services of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Karyakarti have been dispensed with, it is urged that termination is solely on the ground of cancellation of an income certificate of petitioner's husband by the Tehsildar on 20.05.2025 i.e. 15 days prior to passing of the order impugned. It is urged that order impugned has been passed committing flagrant violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same cannot stand. Reliance has been placed upon Division Bench judgement of this Court in Pushpa Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2005 (23) LCD 1247.

3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that in such cases grant of opportunity of hearing may not always be required as per the Government Order dated 21.03.2023 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), as the case of the petitioner is based upon wrong information furnished to the Department. He also seeks time to ascertain as to whether any opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner or not.

4. Prima facie, on perusal of Clause 13 of the Government Order, it does not reflect that termination can be made without granting any opportunity. The said clause is divided into three sub-clauses and when the same are read alongwith reasoning recorded in the order impugned, it is, prima facie, found that the Authority wrongly proceeded to pass the order impugned observing that adherence of principles of natural justice is not required in the given facts of the case.

5. Considering the material placed and the submissions made as well as the ratio of the Division Bench judgment in Pushpa Pandey (supra), a prima facie case for grant for interim relief stands made out.

6. Three weeks' time is granted to the learned Standing Counsel for filing a detailed counter affidavit.

7. One week time thereafter is granted to the petitioner for filing rejoinder affidavit.

8. List this case for final disposal on 11.08.2025 before appropriate Bench.

9. In the meantime, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the District Programme Officer, Gonda (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shall remain stayed. " 7- The order aforesaid indicates that this Court stayed the implementation and operation of order dated 05.06.2025 passed by the District Programme Office, Gonda. 8- At this stage it would be apt to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Versus Church of South India Trust Association, reported in (1992) 3 SCC 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed with regard to the "effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge and effect of quashing of an order". The paragraph 10 of the same, is extracted hereinunder:- "10. In the instant case, the proceedings before the Board under Sections 15 and 16 of the Act had been terminated by order of the Board dated April 26, 1990 whereby the Board, upon consideration of the facts and material before it, found that the appellant-company had become economically and commercially non-viable due to its huge accumulated losses and liabilities and should be wound up. The appeal filed by the appellant-company under Section 25 of the Act against said order of the Board was dismissed by the Appellate Authority by order dated January 7, 1991. As a result of these orders, no proceedings under the Act were pending either before the Board or before the Appellate Authority on February 21, 1991 when the Delhi High Court passed the interim order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991. The said stay order of the High Court cannot have the effect of reviving the proceedings which had been disposed of by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991. While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that if an order passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and the matter is remanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after the quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the Appellate Authority continues in to exist in law and so long as it exists, it cannot be said that the appeal which has been disposed of by the said order has not been disposed of and is still pending. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the passing of the interim order dated February 21, 1991 by the Delhi High Court staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority dated January 7, 1991 does not have the effect of reviving the appeal which had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated January 7, 1991 and it cannot be said that after February 21, 1991, the said appeal stood revived and was pending before the Appellate Authority. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that any proceedings under the Act were pending before the Board or the Appellate Authority on the date of the passing of the order dated August 14, 1991 by the learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court for winding up of the company or on November 6, 1991 when the Division Bench passed the order dismissing O.S.A. No. 16 of 1991 filed by the appellant-company against the order of the learned Single Judge dated August 14, 1991. Section 22(1) of the Act could not, therefore, be invoked and there was no impediment in the High Court dealing with the winding up petition filed by the respondents. This is the only question that has been canvassed in Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1992, directed against the order for winding up of the appellant-company. The said appeal, therefore, fails and is liable to be dismissed." 9- Taking note of the aforesaid including that the writ petition was dismissed for the reliefs no. A to C, on the statement of Sri Skand Bajpai as also the effect of stay, this Court is of the view that present petition is liable to be dismissed. 10- Accordingly, the present review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Jyoti/- JYOTI RAJWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench