SAVITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri S. K. Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, who represents Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5. Sri Khurshid Alam has put in appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 4 2. Under challenge is an order dated 22nd May, 2007, passed by the District Magistrale, Deoria, cancelling the selection of the petitioner as Anganbari Karyakarti in Village Panchayat Dhamauli, Block Laar, District Deoria. 3. As per learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was formally appointed as Anganbari Karyakarti after following due procedure on 8 11. . 12. 2006. She continued to work as Anganbari Karyakarti and received her remuneration from Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. A Writ Petition No. 6147of 2007waspreferredby Smt. Arati Devi, a Scheduled Caste candidate, Respondent No. 4 herein, challenging the appointment of the petitioner. As per learned Counsel for Smt. Arati Devi-Respondent No. 4, she was the only scheduled caste candidate in the village and since the post was reserved for the scheduled caste category, she oughtto have been engaged as Anganbari Karyakarti. This Court wdejudgment and order dated 6. 2. 2007, passed in Writ Petition No. 6147 of 2007, Smt. Arati Dew v. State of U. P, had directed the District Magistrale, Deoria to look into the matter and dispose of the representation submitted by Smt. Arati Devi. Accordingly, vide order dated 8. 4. 2007, the District Magistrale, Deoria, after going through the record and hearing the parties, has held thatthe appointment of Smt. Savita Devi-petitioner in this writ petition, was legal and valid. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that all of a sudden the impugned order dated 22nd May was passed altering the earlier order passed by the District Magistrate on 8. 4. 2007 in violation of principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 4. The District Magistrate, Deoria on 8. 4. 2007 has passed the following order: @ Hindi 5. After disposal of the representation by a detailed reasoned and speaking order in furtherance of this Courfs order, it appears that Smt. Arati Devi again appeared before the District Magistrate, Deoria on 17. 5. 2007. She had reiterated her stand before the District Magistrate again. This time, the District Magistrate has taken a turn around and indicated in the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2007 that Smt. Arati Devi was a suitable candidate for selection and the post was reserved for scheduled caste category candidate. The District Magistrate has cancelled the appointment of Smt. Savita Devi which was made on 8 11 December, 2006 and a de novo selection was ordered to be made. 6. Sri Khurshid Alam, learned Counsel for Smt. Arati Devi has resisted the writ petition and laid much emphasis on the earlier stand taken by Smt. Arati Devi that the post was reserved for scheduled caste category candidate and Smt. Arati Devi was the only suitable and eligible candidate for engagement as Anganbari Karyakarti against the said post. There were serious infirmities in the selection and engagement process which was held in December, 2006. The subseauent order dated 22nd May, 2007 was just and proper. 7. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. There is force in the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to Smt. Savita Devi whose appointment as Anganbari Karyakarti was cancelled after a substantial period of time. She had put in a substantial period in service as Anganbari Karyakarti. 9. It appears from the record that at the relevant time when the selection process took place, the post in question was meant for the general category candidate. No one had raised any objection at the time of selection and appointment recruitment regarding said post and the due procedure followed. The District Magistrate in its earlier order dated 8 11th December, 2006 did not find any fault in the procedure followed for engaging Anganbari Karyakarti, rather he has held that the selection was legal and valid. Moreover, being the only scheduled caste candidate or being the scheduled caste candidate in the Village does not create any statutory right in favour of a person that she alone could be appointed. on a particular post. A candidate can claim right to be considered for appointment or engagement, but not a right to be appointed on a particular post. What has to bejudicially scrutinised is the event which took place in December, 2006 when the process of recruitment was made. At the instance of an interested party, administrative exercise was already carried out which had resulted in order dated 8. 4. 2007. If it is a case of administralive review of an administrative action, there appears to be no discovery of any fresh material or new material which warranted the District Magistrate to alter a decision taken earlier after hearing the parties and going through the record. The learned Counsel for Smt. Arati Devi-Respondent No. 4 as well as learned Standing Counsel have failed to produce any such material or event which could justify the review of the administrative action which has resulted in affecting the rights of Smt. Savita Devi, the petitioner, who was appointed on 8 11m December, 2006 and received remuneration. Moreover, this Court has also noted that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as Smt. Savita Devi, whose rights were going to be affected, was neither heard before passing of the impugned order dated 22nd May, 2007 nor any opportunity of hearing was afforded. 10. My view finds support from the judgments reported in (2007)1 UPLBEC 192, Union of India and others v. Bikash Kuana; (2004) 2 SCC 76, Ramarao and others v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Association and of hersand 1991 Supp. (1) SCC 330, Shravan Kumar and others v. Stateof Bihar and others. 11. In view of the discussions made above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 22nd May, 2007, passed by the District Mag istrate, Deoria is quashed. 12. No order as to cost. .