Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Priyatama Sakharam Wakle, was appointed as an Anganwadi Karyakarti based on a merit list where she stood at Sr. No.1. Respondent No.6 filed a complaint challenging her appointment. The Chief Executive Officer (respondent No.2) allowed the complaint by order dated 3.2.2015 and set aside her appointment. The petitioner appealed to the Divisional Commissioner (respondent No.1), who rejected the appeal on 10.12.2015. The petitioner challenged both orders in the High Court, arguing that she had fulfilled all requirements as per the public proclamation dated 6.12.2013 and was rightly appointed on merit. She claimed to be a resident of village Kumbhephal and had produced a residence certificate. The court found that the orders were passed without giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The court also noted that the residence certificate was not properly verified before cancellation. The High Court quashed both orders and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner a hearing and verifying the residence certificate.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Appointment - Cancellation - Natural Justice - Petitioner's appointment as Anganwadi Karyakarti was set aside by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 without giving her an opportunity of hearing - Held that the orders are unsustainable as they violate principles of natural justice (Paras 4-5). B) Service Law - Residence Certificate - Verification - The petitioner claimed to be a resident of village Kumbhephal and produced a residence certificate - The authorities cancelled her appointment without verifying the genuineness of the certificate - Held that the matter requires reconsideration after proper verification (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders of the Chief Executive Officer and the Divisional Commissioner setting aside the petitioner's appointment as Anganwadi Karyakarti were legally sustainable when the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing and her residence certificate was not properly verified.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 3.2.2015 and 10.12.2015 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.6 and after verifying the residence certificate of the petitioner. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Appointment cancellation without notice
- Residence certificate verification
