SUNITA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the post of Aaganbari Worker in village Bohana, district Azamgarh. In the merit list, the petitioner has obtained highest marks and was selected. The selection was approved by the District Magistrate, Azamgarh vide order dated 19.06.2011 and in pursuance thereof the petitioner has been appointed as Aaganbari Worker vide appointment letter dated 21.06.2011. One Smt. Reena Devi, respondent no.5 field a complaint before the District Magistrate, Azamgarh. In the complaint the respondent no.5 has stated that she applied for the post of Aaganbari Worker, she is a widow falls under BPL category and therefore would be entitled for the appointment on the post of Aaganbari Worker and instead of appointing her as Aaganbari Worker, she has been appointed as Aaganbari Sahayika and petitioner, Smt. Sunita Singh has been appointed as Aaganbari Worker. On the said complaint, District Programme Officer has made an inquiry. The District Programme Officer wrote a letter dated 09.08.2011, in which he has stated that the respondent no.5 has passed High School is a widow of BPL category eligible for appointment on the post of Aaganbari Worker and, her application for the post of Aaganbari Sahayika appears to be doubtful. He directed that the appointment of the petitioner, Smt. Sunita Singh may be cancelled and the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi may be appointed as Aaganbari Worker. In pursuance of the said letter, Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and appointed the respondent no.5, Smt. Reena Devi as Aaganbari Worker. The petitioner challenged the said order in the present writ petition.

(3.) The writ petition came up before this Court on 23.08.2011. On that date learned Standing Counsel was directed to produce the record relating to the appointment of the petitioner and respondent no.5 and the matter was directed to be listed on 29.08.2011.