SONAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dtd. 13/6/2025 passed by District Programme Officer, Bareilly cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Anganbari Worker chiefly on the ground that petitioner's sister-in-law (jethani) was also working as Anganbari Assistant in the same block and the Government Order does not permit the posting of two women of the same family at same centre as Anganbari Worker and Anganbari Assistant.

(3.) Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner in the first instance submitted that order impugned has been without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Since order has adverse civil Consequences, petitioner ought to have been afforded her explanation in defence of appointment order. The legal aspect as to the bar created under the Government Order dtd. 21/5/2023, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that relevant Clause of the said order vide Clause 12 (iv) only this much provides that two ladies of the same family will not be appointed as Anganbari Worker and Anganbari Assistant at the same center. The relevant provisions as reproduced hereunder: