KIRAN RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In response to an advertisement issued by the respondents for appointment of Aanganwari Karyakatri for the village in question, the petitioner as well as other candidates had applied. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Selection Committee, in terms of the Government order dated 16.12.2003, the name of the petitioner was recommended for appointment and consequently by order dated 25.8.2006, the petitioner was given appointment as Aanganwari Karyakatri. By the impugned order dated 23.11.2006, the appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the income certificate of the petitioner appears to be doubtful and that it appears to be fabricated. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the order impugned in this writ petition deserves to be set aside.