KIRAN SONKAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition and the other related similar matters have principally raised a challenge to the Government order dated 12th of Jan. 2006 whereby the Secretary, Women and Child Development Department, Govt. of U.P. Lucknow has issued directions cancelling all selections of Aanganbadi Workers and Assistants seeking appointments under the Integrated Child Development Services. The ground of challenge is that en-masse cancellation of selections is without any basis and therefore, the State action is unreasonable and smacks of arbitrariness, thereby violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The learned Chief Standing Counsel Sri C.B. Yadav has resisted the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioners and has urged that it was on account of complaints having been received from several districts that such a step became necessary in order to ensure transparency and fairness in the selection of Aanganbadi workers and assistants. He submits that the government order dated 12.1.2006 does not in any way prejudice the claim of the petitioners as they shall be again entitled to apply and be considered in accordance with rules. Relying on the decision of Shankarshan Das v. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612 , [1991 (62) FLR 981], JT 1991 (2) SC 380 , 1991 Lab IC 1460 , (1992) II LLJ 18 SC , 1991 (1)SCALE 848 , (1991) 3 SCC 47 , [1991] 2 SCR 567 , 1991 (2) UJ 212 (SC) , (1991) 2 UPLBEC 933 , Shri Yadav contends that even in the matters of public employment mere selection does not give any right of appointment and therefore, the petitioners who have been merely selected do not have vested right to claim appointment. He has further submitted that there is no violation of any legal or statutory rights of the petitioners and as such the relief claimed for cannot be granted.

(3.) Shri Yadav has further relied on two decisions of the Apex Court to support the stand taken on behalf of the State, to the effect, that whenever such large scale irregularities are reported, then in that event the employer has the right to cancel the selections enmasse. The decisions relied upon by him are Krishan Yadav and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2166 , JT 1994 (4) SC 45 , (1995) II LLJ 77 SC , 1994 (2)SCALE 889 , (1994) 4 SCC 165 , [1994] 3 SCR 1045 , 1994 (2) SLJ 192 (SC) , 1994 (2) UJ 594 (SC) and Union of India and Ors. v. O.K Chakradhar, AIR 2002 SC 1119 , 2002 (2) AWC 1264 (SC ), [2002 (93) FLR 165], [2002 (2) JCR 85 (SC)], JT 2002 (2) SC 191 , 2002 LabIC 982 , RLW 2002 (3) SC 364 , 2002 (2) SCALE 214 , (2002) 3 SCC 146 , 2002 (2) SCT 176 (SC) , 2002 (2) SLJ 275 (SC) , (2002) 1 UPLBEC 924 .