Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Rajni Devi vs State Of J&K; And Ors. on 3 March, 2018
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
AT JAMMU
SWP No.583/2011, MP No.850/2011
Date of order: 03.03.2018
Rajni Devi Vs. State of J&K & others
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Aradhe, Judge
Appearing counsel:
For Petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. S. S. Ahmed, Advocate.
For respondent (s) : Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG, vice
Mr. Vishal Bharti, Dy. AG.
The petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
In this petition, the petitioner, inter alia, seeks following reliefs:
"Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of State of Jammu and Kashmir for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction including in the nature of:-
A) Certioari:-
Quashing order No.DCD/PA/2KXI/5036-40 dated 02.02.2011 passed by the respondent No.2, whereby the respondent No.2 without affording any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after relying on a false certificate of respondent No.7, which is not based on the true facts directed the cancellation of the engagement of the petitioner as Anganwari Helper and further directed that in place of the petitioner respondent No.9 be appointed as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre in question.
B) Mandamus:-
Commanding the respondents not to disengage the petitioner from the post of Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Ward No.8, Mashla, Doda for which the petitioner was duly appointed by the respondent No.6 through a valid/transparent selection process vide his No.ICDS/B/SEL/011/441/45 dated 12.01.2011 without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.
Prayer for the grant of any other interim or final relief as may be deemed appropriate in the circumstances of the case."SWP No.583/2011 Page 1 of 2
When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was engaged as Anganwari Helper in Anganwari Centre Ward No.8, Panchayat Bajarni of ICDS Project Bhagwah vide order dated 12.01.2011 and was performing her duties. However, vide impugned order dated
02.02.2011, respondent No.2 has passed an order of disengagement of the services of petitioner without relying upon the reports of respondent Nos.4 and 6 and also the earlier certificate/report of respondent No.8 dated 26.11.2010. It is further submitted that before passing the impugned order, neither any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner nor any notice was given to her. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General failed to point out from the record as to whether any opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner or any notice was issued to her.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. A Bench of this Court while entertaining the petition, by an ad-interim order dated 22.03.2011, had stayed the operation of impugned order dated 02.02.2011. As a result of which, the petitioner is continuing on the post.
In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the fact that the impugned order dated 02.02.2011 has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, the impugned order dated 02.02.2011 is hereby quashed. Needless to state that the respondents shall be at liberty to pass fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.9.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly, along with connected MP.
(Alok Aradhe) Judge Jammu 03.03.2018 Surinder SWP No.583/2011 Page 2 of 2