ANITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the fifth respondent in the writ petition. The writ petitioner was at Serial No. 32 in the selection process for the post of Mini Aanganbadi Karyakatri. The appointment of the writ petitioner was approved. There was a complaint given by the appellant that the writ petitioner had secured appointment in a wrong way. The said complaint was dated 10.11.2014. An inquiry was held on 25.03.2015. The writ petition filed by the writ petitioner was allowed on the ground that the writ petitioner was not associated during the course of the inquiry and there was no notice issued by the Tehsildar before submitting the inquiry report. Appellant, who had been appointed in place of the writ petitioner, is before us questioning the judgment.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Upreti, learned counsel for the appellant; Mr. S.S. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State; and Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 / writ petitioner.

(3.) The writ petition has been allowed on the ground that there is violation of principles of natural justice; in that, the writ petitioner was not afforded an opportunity in the course of the inquiry, which was held and which finally culminated in the termination of the services of the writ petitioner. There is no case as such for the appellant that this finding is wrong. Secondly, it is brought to our notice by the learned Deputy Advocate General that an inquiry was held and it was found that the writ petitioner was entitled to be appointed. Apparently, it is to be noticed that the case of the appellant appears to be that the writ petitioner had produced a forged income certificate.