SUNITA SINGH Vs. BAL VIKAS PARIYOJANA ADHIKARI MAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. These Special appeals arise out of the judgment dated 8-8-2003 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 4614 of 1997 and 4396 of 1997 whereby both the writ petitions have been dismissed by Hon'ble Single Judge. Writ Petition Nos. 5044 of 2006 and 5046 of 2006 relate to enforcement of the orders passed during the pendency of the Special Appeals and depends upon the fate of two Special Appeals, hence, are being heard alongwith these appeals. Since the facts and the issues involved in both the appeals and writ petitions are common, hence are being decided together by this common judgment.

(2.) THE Special Appeal No. 491 of 2003 arises out of writ petition No. 4614 of 1997 filed by five petitioner-appellants and the facts as disclosed in the writ petition are that the State Government introduced a scheme for establishment of Anganbari Centres in the rural areas for Integrated Child Development and Health Welfare of the Rural Children. THE objectives of establishment of Anganbari Centres includes pre school education, looking after health including diet etc. in order to prepare them as better and educated members of society. THE said Anganbari centers were to be established at village level having population of 20000. For the purpose of imparting instructions to children, appointment of Anganbari Workers and Attendants is governed by various Government orders issued from time to time which we shall deal with in the judgment later on. It is stated that for appointment of Anganbari Workers in District Mau, all the petitioner-appellants faced interview and after following the procedure prescribed, were appointed vide appointment letters dated 2-9-1996, 25-7-1996, 25-7-1996, 29-7-1996 and 29-7-1996 respectively. THE terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioner-appellants are similar and one such appointment letter of petitioner-appellant No. 1 is quoted as under: All the petitioners joined their respective duties in pursuance to their appointment letters and were paid salary upto December, 1996. THEreafter, vide order dated 6-1-1997 passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojana Adhikari, District Mau, all the aforesaid appointments have been cancelled pursuant to the direction issued by the District Magistrate, Mau vide letter dated 6-12-1996. One of such order terminating the appointments of the petitioner-appellants may be reproduced as under: THE writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 6-1-1997 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice, arbitrariness, illegal and lack of jurisdiction on the part of the District Magistrate, Mau in directing termination of services of the petitioner-appellants.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY the District Magistrate decided to initiate proceeding against the then Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari (Child Development Project Officer), Mau who has made such appointment and in the meantime directed to take steps for cancellation of all such appointments and further to take steps for making appointment in accordance with the rules. CONSEQUENTLY, the present Child Development Project Officer, Mau issued orders dated 6-1-1997 canceling appointments of the petitioner- appellants. It is submitted that the aforesaid appointments were made without following any procedure prescribed under the rules and therefore, the appointments were totally illegal and void ab-initio. In any case, the appointments, not in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in the relevant G. Os. , are contrary to the procedure prescribed for appointment to the aforesaid post and therefore, there is no illegality in the order passed by respondent No. 1.