MANJU DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 23.1.2007 passed by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition), cancelling the entire selection of Aganbari Karyakarti/Sahayika in district Mau, to place all the concerned Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari/District Programme Officer under suspension and also to lodge First Information Report in the matter; the order dated 2.2.2007, consequential one, issued by the Director, Bal Vikas Sewa Evam Pushtahar, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Director'), annexure-11 to the writ petition, communicating the cancellation of above selection in 9 projects of District Mau, and the order dated 8.2.2007, annexure-12 to the writ petition, consequential order issued by District Programme Officer, Mau for compliance of State Government's order dated 23.1.2007 and Director's order dated 2.2.2007.

(3.) IT appears that several complaints were received by respondents in respect of above selection, hence, vide letter dated 1.8.2006, Secretary, Women Welfare and Child Development directed for freezing of the entire selection at the stage it was and not to issue any appointment letter further. Thereafter, on 29.8.2006 decision was taken for cancellation of selection and to make a fresh and also to place the concerned officials under suspension. The consequential order was issued by Director on 31.8.2006 for compliance of the State Government's order dated 29.8.2006. IT appears that District Magistrate sent a letter dated 31.8.2008 recommending that cancellation of entire selection does not appear to be justified and in respect to individual erroneous selections separate action be taken. The aforesaid order dated 29.8.2006 issued by State Government and consequential order dated 31.8.2006 of Director were challenged before this Court in a number of writ petitions. The leading writ petition No. 50346 of 2006, Smt. Meera Pandey and Others v. State of U.P. and others, was allowed vide judgment dated 26.9.2006 with the following directions: "Consequently, writ petition succeed, and are allowed. Impugned orders are quashed. However, passing of this order will not prevent the respondents from undertaking inquiry as has already been directed, and the selections made, shall abide by final outcome of the enquiry."