SUNEETA Vs. KAVITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application seeking condonation of delay is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, and the delay is, therefore, condoned.

(2.) This appeal is preferred by the fifth respondent in the Writ petition aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (SS) No.1015 of 2018 dtd. 1/11/2018.

(3.) Consequent on a process of selection being undertaken, the respondent-writ petitioner was selected as an Anganbadi Karyakarti in the Anganbadi Centre, Koti Village, Purola Tehsil, Uttarkashi District. On a complaint made by the father-in-law of the appellant, the respondent -writ petitioner's appointment was cancelled, by order dtd. 28/2/2018, on the ground that she had secured appointment as a candidate belonging to the Below Poverty Line (for short BPL) category, though, during the relevant period, she was working as a woman motivator in the Jalgam Project, for which she was getting remuneration of Rs.2,000.00 per month.